Photo's for nothing?

[Snapper Baz]

I understand that some people have been offering their (photo)services to magazines/drivers for nothing just to get in with those magazines/drivers/teams. Although it may sound a good idea and clever-it will do you no favours in the long run. It wins you no friends in the "real" world and it also makes (some) drivers come up with the "why should I buy photo's when joe bloggs gives me his for nothing!" From an outsiders thinking it may seem a bit trivial but it seems to be on the increase. One "popular" UK magazine seems to be taking this stance at present-and by the look of some of the pictures you can see that they are not paying for them (or very little)as the quality is rubbish. Anybody thinking of getting into the magazine side of things-make sure you charge for your services and not just enough for a half pint in return!

[redshoes]

Perhaps some advice about what you consider an appropriate fee would be helpful. Charge too much and you'll never get anything published, too little and you'll upset rival snappers, but for newbie how do you know what is reasonable?

[Jay]

For magazines that have any sort of circulation, I tend to agree. However, I know a number of lower level drivers use free photos from amateurs because they cannot afford the services of a pro-photographer, or can't be bothered with the expense when just getting the car to the track is a challenge. I know it may upset some of the pro-photographers and companies, but I think it is a win-win situation for driver and a photographer. Driver gets cheap or free photos for his PR and the photographer gets to see his photos used for something. Odds are if the driver got up into the higher levels (cart, f1, etc) they'd buy from a pro anyway.

[theracegypsy]

There is another side to this, and I would hate to see it lost.
Both Baz & Jay, and Paul (Collins,) Jeff Bloxham, DJB, the Gaisford's, father & son and many others have a good understanding and relationship with the marshals.
Most professional and acredited amateur phothogs are welcome on marshals posts if they show they understand what they can and can't do on post. As a result they often get opportunities to achieve shots which would otherwise be impossible.
Normally if asked they will then supply a print or e:mail of the marshals in action.
This to me is a great relationship, and I would hate to see it lost by a few professional photographwers demanding payment for such shots.
Equally however marshal subject of such prints should remember that if they use them outside their own home, eg on website or forum they should first get the photographers permission for such use, and second credit the photographer.

[Jay]

I should clarify, I'm a journalist, not a photographer... which might explain why I'm not against free photos. I haven't had many opportunities to be infront of marshall's holes (though I've never met a marshall that wasn't accomdating!) Most of my photographs are from the pitlane or interviews, which are good enough to use with most stories when we don't have a real photographer...but nowhere near pro-like. That said, only the largest websites can afford to buy from the pros, so they have to use photos of amateurs (or in our case a pro when djb's along ) if they want photos.

[vwpilot]

I have to agree with the first poster. This is gettting far to common in the current market.

I have one comment for you Jay. You say you are a journalist so you dont object to free pictures.

Well, what if other journalists were giving thier stuff away for free? Would you feel the same way? Would you be just as happy having to lower your rates so that a publication that is getting free articles will still use them?

It works both ways. It seems that anyone thinks they can take a good picture and that there is not as much talent in that as writing or something of that nature. That somehow photography is not worth as much as other forums of media. This is seriously hurting the industry right now.

Now I agree that on occasion a free picture or two is ok, but everything in racing is about money. The teams want pictures for websites and PR so they can bring more notariety to the team, which will hopefully bring sponsors. Why should the photographer be the only one in that group that doesnt make anything? Why should a photographer be expected to pay his own way to the race, have tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and not be compensated for it?

Anyhow, just some stuff to think about. Anyone that is having their work published or having teams use it should get some form of compensation.

[Craig]

A *lot* of photographers will allow teams/drivers to use their 'stock' efforts FOC on their websites in an effort to get a contact that then wants a specific shot or to use their work in the printed media or other promo activities - is this the norm now and how do you see this?

[Kelvin]

I submitted an image the other day to club magazine, I got a vey nice reply saying that they would love to use the picture but funds were not great and they would not be able to pay me... Now I made no mention of money and I replied saying if they were happy to print it and credit me, then there woulld be no charge.. If as a result I get requests for further images from the drivers concerned, then there most certainly will be a charge. So free to a magazine, if the quality is up to it does not always devalue the work of the photographer!!

Magazine editors tend to be very selective. I would be very suprised if they will be using free and sub-standard work..

[Jay]

I think there's a bit of confusion - I'm a total amateur, I'm just doing it for a few different websites during the summer... if I ever got payed for it great, but I'm not looking for that, and even if I was offered a job with a publication, I'd probably turn it down as it's not a career to me. And if I'm taking any money away from any other journos, then they need to write better pieces.

I do understand that there is a *ton* of skill required in taking good photos (from experience!), and I have not seen many amateurs taht could even come close to the pros... So, if you do need good photos, you need a pro-photograher with tons of experience and expensive gear. There's no substitute.

That said, I know some (most I bet) young drivers can't afford those services, so they settle for less than the best. I just finished doing a story with one driver whos publicist does all of her photography for her website and other PR, even though he's a complete amateur - something that doesn't seem uncommon. He was nice enough to offer us photos to go with our story at no charge, so we took them.

[vwpilot]

Kelvin,

I agree, there are certain instances when free is ok. I shoot local SCCA events and sell to the drivers. There is a local regional magazine that they put out talking about previous events. I submit about 10 or so photos to them each month at no charge. In return I have gotten a break in running advertisements in the magazines (so some pay I guess) and I am exposed to all the local drivers that I am shooting and directly trying to sell too. So it is more free advertising than anything.

In this case I dont see an issue. However, if it were a major magazine that is distributed more than locally and if it were to any of the teams/drivers, then I charge them, no questions asked.

[woodyracing]

Im pretty new to photography and I have a question.

The Pros usually have better equipment and can often take photos from better locations (on the other side of the fence etc), but if a Pro and an amature had the same equipment and were stood in the same place, would the Pros photos be so different to the amatures ?

Ive had some very nice results so far with my SLR and 75-300mm lens, sure if I had the knowledge and experience Id be able to get different effects etc but I dont see whats wrong with some of mine.

[Kelvin]

Often you will see a group of pro's standing in very close proximity to one another, but u rarely see identical photos!!! Why is that you may ask, think about it and you will go some way to answering your own question!!!
(its a bit off topic, may deserve it own thread!!)

Kelvin

[redshoes]

Originally posted by woodyracing
if a Pro and an amature had the same equipment and were stood in the same place, would the Pros photos be so different to the amatures ?

It's like putting 2 drivers in identical cars, you will always get different lap times.

[Kelvin]

& I always break the lap record.... sorry!
Well I like to think so

[woodyracing]

Id like to compare pro or serious amateur photos with my efforts sometime. (mine will be on my website once ive got up to date with it).

[paul-collins]

If I have my work published for free on a website, does that make me bad? Particularly if this website doesn't have the finances to cover my efforts, and will run without content if I don't?

Two examples:

I've had articles with photos published on www.dailysportscar.com - which would have not had the coverage had I not submitted it. They can afford only so much, and my own self-interest dictates that I want them to survive and flourish. Am I wrong to supply them with info? (As an aside, a condition of my "insider access" for one of the articles was that I allow the team in question to use my photos for their website - but that if they were to print them, I'd be recompensed.)

The other is that I recently worked for www.champweb.net at the Toronto Molson Indy, and would never have had the access to the track that their credentials gave me. I spent a little over $100 on film and developing for the weekend (18 films), but a weekend GA pass would have set me back $60, and Paddock access would have cost me another $46. Not to mention that I was fed and had free juices and waters all weekend thanks to the Press access. Again, champweb is a smallish operation, and would not have had any photos otherwise. (Bob, you're in there.)

As a counterpoint, I recently had a couple of small images inserted in a Canadian motorsport magazine, and they owe me $30 - that's their rate.

I guess it comes down to I'm doing things for free where there's no market for payment for my work. If my images were to be published by a mainline media outlet or used by teams for promotional or personal uses, I'd expect compensation.

[vwpilot]

Paul, that is a little different than giving away photos, slightly. You are working for that website and without your coverage there would be none, that is fair and fine. You have an interest in the site to make sure it does well, its very similar to shooting for your own business.

I do the same with www.speedarena.com and since I have an interest in the site doing well I often pay out of my own pocket to go to races and cover them. The payment from them consists of expenses when possible, but is also the entry into the race where I can then cover it and also persure sales to teams, magazines, etc.

However, if the site is making enough money to pay then I would expect payment, as you should. If the site is paying for photos from other photographers why is that? If they can afford to pay another, then they should be able to pay you. That is why with my site I get paid when we have enough in the bank for it. when you have a direct interest in who is getting the pictures its a little different.

Now as far as the CART site goes, what would happen if you didnt supply them photos? Would they just not have any? What if no photographer gave them photos? They would either find a way to pay or go under without any coverage right? Problem is sometimes a site like that can go on not paying because there is always someone willing to shoot for free, when in reality if it meant paying or no photos they could often find a way to pay. Just something to think about.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by vwpilot
I do the same with www.speedarena.com and since I have an interest in the site doing well I often pay out of my own pocket to go to races and cover them. The payment from them consists of expenses when possible, but is also the entry into the race where I can then cover it and also persure sales to teams, magazines, etc.

...

Now as far as the CART site goes, what would happen if you didnt supply them photos? Would they just not have any? What if no photographer gave them photos? They would either find a way to pay or go under without any coverage right? Problem is sometimes a site like that can go on not paying because there is always someone willing to shoot for free, when in reality if it meant paying or no photos they could often find a way to pay. Just something to think about.

The waiver I had to sign for CART, IIRC, disallowed me from selling my work to the teams - I could only be compensated by the organization that got me the credentials. (Of course, that would be hard to police if the teams approached me...)

Anyway, champweb is (I believe) currently not in the position to pay for photographers. The photo editor (MolsonBoy) basically said as much in his solicitation for photographers. And if you look at the site, its imagery is limited to those who worked for them at an event for free, or someone who submitted their photos for free. They have events where they have no photos at all. So I'd say that the answer to what they'd do without the free photos is that they'd do without photos at all.

[Snapper Baz]

This has got interesting! I also read the the posting RE: covering for no fee the "champweb" thing. Perhaps if I was a non-press person I would definately considered the offer if only to get foot on the ladder but what does annoy me are the people/teams/website's that rely on other peoples genorosity/free work when they obviously have an income from one source or another, whether that be sponsorship or whatever. I have (hopefully) many marshal friends who I will gladly give pics to-in fact I gave away a fair few from the Champcar Brands meeting with various marshals posing with drivers etc-or dealing with incidents...I wouldn't ask for money and never would-unless I was asked to do a 10x8 or something...and then again I don't charge as much as I would a driver. When you have been in this game as long as me you get to know many drivers and 99% are extremely eager to buy pictures but then you get the few who are so tight you wouldn't beleive. A young driver who last year raced the BMW that Bentwood now races in the BTCC wanted a superb airbourne picture I had of him at Dingle Dell-he said to his dad..."Dad thats a great shot can you get it for me?" His dad replied (now bare in mind he was racing for a BTCC team and was obvously not short of a bob' or two) His dad said "If your giving it away we'll have it" Cheaky ******** I thought, then his son said come on dad-I realy want that... "I'll give you 2 quid for it thats all-take it or leave it!" I said I'll leave it and promptly ripped it up in front of his racing son.He was gob-smacked and later said I might have you given me a little more! I later saw him driving off out of the Thruxton paddock in a big flash BMW or something! It's people like that that **** me off-and their are many of them usually with pots of money. VW Pilot has the right look on things. Too many people out there are out and out spongers and are now expecting stuff for nothing-and whats just as irritating is there are people out there willing to supply them cos they think they are doing the driver/magazine a favour! Giving pic's to a few driver mates for their own little web site is different and I often do as they do it for fun and not for profit otherwise I wouldn't do it. I have heard of one UK rally photographer who is now giving pictures away because he thinks its great to get "in" with all the drivers...the usual photogrphers are now getting more than annoyed at his ways and I wouldn't care to be in his shoes for much longer!

[Craig]

then you get the few who are so tight you wouldn't beleive. A young driver who last year raced the BMW that Bentwood now races in the BTCC wanted a superb airbourne picture I had of him at Dingle Dell-he said to his dad..."Dad thats a great shot can you get it for me?" His dad replied (now bare in mind he was racing for a BTCC team and was obvously not short of a bob' or two) His dad said "If your giving it away we'll have it" Cheaky ******** I thought, then his son said come on dad-I realy want that... "I'll give you 2 quid for it thats all-take it or leave it!" I said I'll leave it and promptly ripped it up in front of his racing son.He was gob-smacked and later said I might have you given me a little more! I later saw him driving off out of the Thruxton paddock in a big flash BMW or something!

Erm, yeah, I've had dealings with someone just like that recently...! Ahem.

[Andrew Kitson]

It's normally some of the F1 drivers or prima donnas in the F1 paddock who have this attitude. Many of them think that the little guy like me with my paintings / prints will do a 'quick picture' for free. Because they get so many things for free they think everything should be.

[cricketneil]

I was one of the people who covered the Brands Hatch meeting for Champweb simply because I was going to all three days of the meeting and had the cameras with me.

Like Paul-Collins, I don't see the problem in sending a few pictures to websites or club magazines if it means it helps that site or publication.

As an example, I took a few photographs of the Sports 2000 series cars in and around the paddock at the recent(ish) meeting at Thruxton and sent a cd of the best ones to the Sports 2000 organisers. If they want use them on their website or in their club magazine as something different from their normal contributors then that's fine by me; all I ask for is a credit.

I wouldn't dream of asking for payment for my pictures because I simply don't think they are up to the standard of the professionals.


I like motorsport and I like photography. At 36 I'm too old to think about a career as a motorsport photographer, but if somebody can make some use of pictures that would otherwise only go on my hall wall then that's just fine by me.

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by cricketneil

I wouldn't dream of asking for payment for my pictures because I simply don't think they are up to the standard of the professionals.

Why not? Have you asked for any money? You never know.

I had someone tell me once he was giving some shots to a professional racing team because they asked him for them and he wasnt charging them because he was not a pro and took the shots with a regular P&S digi.

I asked him why? The team actually came to him asking for the shots. Why should the level of gear you are using or your considered expertise matter? If someone thinks your shots are good enough to use, they are worth money. How much is one thing, maybe you arent as good as a John Brooks or Regis Lefebure and so you cant charge as much as them, but they are still worth something. This is when you have to ask and see what you can arrange. Someone with the ability to pay for shots, such as a magazine or racing team, should be able to afford something. They arent going to go without if they really need them. If they think yours are good enough, you should try.

Additionally keep this in mind, especially with teams and larger mags. Even if money is tight, are they gonna use crappy shots to show off thier team or put in their mags? No, they will have a standard, if you meet that standard you are worth it. They arent going to turn away good shots they have to pay something for to use free shots that suck.

Originally posted by cricketneil

I like motorsport and I like photography. At 36 I'm too old to think about a career as a motorsport photographer, but if somebody can make some use of pictures that would otherwise only go on my hall wall then that's just fine by me.

Never too late. I am 32 and this is my first year of seriously marketing my work. Its going well. Next season hopefully better. If I can do this for a living what could be better? But you are not that far from me, if you really want it go for it.

[Jay]

vwpilot, champweb.net is helping amateur photographers get credentials at Cart races. The photos taken are being displayed in their gallery ONLY. I think most of the people they have that shoot their photos are more than grateful for the photo credentials, which looking around this forum are very very desirable. Cart only gives photo credentials to photographers working for recognized media - any freelancers must buy very expensive super photo passes (I think they were about $400CA for the Toronto race) to get the same access. Personally, I think the website is more than compensating their photographers by getting them the access.

Looking around this forum and many others there are clearly hundreds of amateurs that would gladly give their photos for free (heck, they'd pay!) in exchange for photographer accreditation. At the street races especially, that's the only way to get good shots or anything worth paying money for. You could say they're using it as a springboard to potentially working for someone where they would be payed in the future.

My opinion on this in general is that it's up to the pros to offer a product that's above and beyond what the amateurs can produce. In general, this seems to be true.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Jay
Cart only gives photo credentials to photographers working for recognized media - any freelancers must buy very expensive super photo passes (I think they were about $400CA for the Toronto race) to get the same access. Personally, I think the website is more than compensating their photographers by getting them the access.

$457.50, to be precise. You do get access to the tower at Turns 1 and 3, though - and it's the only way you can photograph at Turn 3.

Originally posted by Jay
Looking around this forum and many others there are clearly hundreds of amateurs that would gladly give their photos for free (heck, they'd pay!) in exchange for photographer accreditation. At the street races especially, that's the only way to get good shots or anything worth paying money for.

Taking it a step further, it's about the only way I'd attend the Indy at Toronto, as GA is awful, I'm not fond of grandstands, and the VIP areas are beyond my means. So, in effect, my payment is my access.

Mosport, for comparison, is inexpensive for GA, and you've got great vantages all over. I'm sure I'll discover some nice credential-only areas this year, but I was quite pleased with my photographs last year.