Professionals vs. Amateurs

[P3D Paul S. Boyer <boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Whoah!  Someone wrote recently:
'This sounds like the argument the record companies used to use
against DAT 
tape, claiming they would "lose" sales if people could easily make
high 
quality copies of CDs, etc.  Well, for the sales to be lost, they
would have 
to prove that they were theirs to begin with.  Not everyone who
copies a CD, 
or an amateur wedding photo, is someone who would necessarily have
bought one 
otherwise.

The professional photographer should provide better quality photos at
a price 
that is justified by the quality.  If he/she can't do that, it's time
to find 
another line of work." [unquote]

Some experience: my wife was a wedding photographer for 12 years, and
I occasionally helped out.  I have also been to weddings.  One of the
problems is that the amateurs simply get in the way, and slow things
down.  If a shot is missed, who gets the blame?  The professional.
So amateurs must be asked to clear away until after the professional,
contracted photographer is finished.

Professionals can produce better pictures than almost all amateurs
because the professional uses medium-format and better lighting
devices, and also is simply better at the art of photography.  It may
look easy to an outsider, but getting really good pictures is much
more than snapping away.

The casual attitude shown by some of the postings to copyright theft
is totally unjustified.  Would you like it if someone took your car
(when you were not using it) and used it on the grounds that he
wouldn't have bought it anyway?  Property is property, whether the
thief would have been a potential sale or not.

In wedding-photography contracts there is usually a provision that
the negatives and reproduction rights stay with the photographer.
That is part of the deal.  If you do not like it, you can contract to
own all the negatives yourself.

When you copy a professional's work without permission, you are
stealing.  Only once or twice did we run into this in my wife's
business, and I am inclined to think that the violation was
inadvertant: a relative simply took a picture to be duplicated, and
the photo-shop called us because the copyright notice was right on
the back of the print, and they legally and morally are bound to ask
permission.  In that case the customer was sent to us, we got a
superior print from the original negative, and I think everyone was
happy.

Professional wedding photographers charge high rates, but they do not
clear much themselves.  Their equipment is expensive, requiring
constant maintenance.  Film and lab costs are high.  There is much
time and strenuous effort in a crowded, loud environment, at odd
hours.  The equipment is heavy.  Often the photographer is not even
given a sandwich (although the band gets a full dinner).  When one
includes the extended conferences with clients and potential clients,
and the dithering over picture choices long after the wedding is
over, the marriages which break up before the albums are even
completed, why, it hardly pays.  Next time you are at a wedding, keep
out of the professional's way, let him do the job, and you will
probably find a cooperative spirit in return.

--Paul S. Boyer   <boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


------------------------------