Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This Photograph Is Not Free

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 257 posts

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#71

Post by gmac »

josefresco wrote: post #59
slavak wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of... Tapping with a hammer ......................... $ 10.00 Knowing where to tap .......................... $990.00

The story is much longer... it involved a creaky wooden floor and two contractors. One quotes say $1000 and 7 days to fix, tears the whole thing up and fixes it. The other quotes $1000 pulls out his hammer and fixes the creaky floor with one nail in a few seconds. Both fixed the problem, but the expert isn't worth any less than the guy who put in tons of man-hours.

In fact, the expert is worth a lot more, because he saves you 7 days of disruption.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#72

Post by bad_user »

The author talks about sunken costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs

These are costs that can't be added in a discussion on the cost of producing the products on an on-going basis. Otherwise you need to take those 6000 bucks mentioned and divide it by the thousands of photos you're going to make with that equipment.

Which will bring the cost of a photo to something much more real (excluding on-going time and gasoline investments): less than $1

Also, in capitalism the price doesn't necessarily reflect the cost of producing something. It is rather an equation of value, supply and demand. So a much better technique is to convince me why I should like that photo. Educating readers on recognizing quality is better than analyzing the costs involved.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#73

Post by cas »

mrsebastian wrote: post #22

I'm also a photographer, and I don't really buy into this particular philosophical argument. The problem with photography is that you're never dealing with ORIGINAL ART. When John or I give a JPEG to a magazine or website, we're not _losing_ anything. This is the same argument that the RIAA and MPAA have tried to spin for over a decade. I sell prints of my photos, and as long as no one else sets up shop and starts se…

I find it strange that more people have not brought up the 'lost-sale' fallacy. By saying 'no' he actually loses out in the end because if the magazine is only looking for free photos, say to the keep costs down, it will just go elsewhere and the readership of that magazine will probably never know about that amazing photograph nor the photographer himself.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#74

Post by dalke »

hellweaver666 wrote: post #67
jdietrich wrote: post #48

The machinery needed to produce a ballpoint pen costs the best part of $10m. A ballpoint pen costs 20 cents. Cameras are expensive. Photographs are almost worthless. Supply utterly outstrips demand, especially for shots like landscapes that have great appeal for amateur photographers but little commercial utility. Ten years ago, you could name every paparazzo working in London. They were a small circle of time-served…

> It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most > of the old-timers are shooting commercial work or weddings. Strange you should say that, as we actually hired an ex photo-journalist to do our wedding photos as we didn't want any posed nonsense, just genuine photos of people as they naturally were. The photos that we received were amazing and we were really happy with the results. I spoke to him on the…

We did the same thing, and were also really happy. Plus, he didn't keep the copyright to the results and he gave us a DVD filled with photos.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#75

Post by bad_user »

hellweaver666 wrote: post #67
jdietrich wrote: post #48

The machinery needed to produce a ballpoint pen costs the best part of $10m. A ballpoint pen costs 20 cents. Cameras are expensive. Photographs are almost worthless. Supply utterly outstrips demand, especially for shots like landscapes that have great appeal for amateur photographers but little commercial utility. Ten years ago, you could name every paparazzo working in London. They were a small circle of time-served…

> It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most > of the old-timers are shooting commercial work or weddings. Strange you should say that, as we actually hired an ex photo-journalist to do our wedding photos as we didn't want any posed nonsense, just genuine photos of people as they naturally were. The photos that we received were amazing and we were really happy with the results. I spoke to him on the…

That's because people doing weddings are NOT selling photographs. They are selling their time and expertise, which will always be in short supply.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#76

Post by bediger »

guynamedloren wrote: post #8

The photographer, John Mueller, is absolutely amazing and deserves to be paid for the art he produces. See his work here: http://www.johnbmueller.com Regarding the value of the photo, I highly doubt he believes a single photo is worth $6,612. He is merely trying to explain that he should be paid for his work, and he has. Arguing that it is expensive to take photos wouldn't have gotten your attention. This got your at…

"Deserves" to be paid? That seems a little counter-free-market. IF he produces a photo that someone wants or thinks they can use, THEN he can charge what the market will bear.

"Deserves to be paid". Humbug. That's the beginnings of an aristocracy that "deserve" to rule.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#77

Post by Suncho »

slavak wrote: post #66
Suncho wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I did not. Just because something can't be bought or sold does not mean it lacks worth. Please explain why you think "technological progress would basically grind to a halt" in a world where people are allowed to collaborate freely.

Because while I'm not sure what kind of world you live in, in mine I need money to put a roof over my head and food on the table - things that according to your world-view definitely do have monetary value. If creating anything digital makes it basically a free-for-all on who can grab it for free faster, then I'm not going to bother as it's not paying my bills. And, in case you haven't noticed, most of our world is p…

I live in a world where, due to the continuous advancement of technological efficiency and the resulting elimintation of jobs, it's becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect people to work for a living. Society no longer needs contributions from everyone.

When you get to the point where what you do on a day-to-day basis is no longer directly tied to your livelihood, what will you do? As the number of ways in which an individual can make money rapidly dwindles, what will humanity do?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#78

Post by davidw »

bad_user wrote: post #75
hellweaver666 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's now scarcely possible to make a proper living and most > of the old-timers are shooting commercial work or weddings. Strange you should say that, as we actually hired an ex photo-journalist to do our wedding photos as we didn't want any posed nonsense, just genuine photos of people as they naturally were. The photos that we received were amazing and we were really happy with the results. I spoke to him on the…

That's because people doing weddings are NOT selling photographs. They are selling their time and expertise, which will always be in short supply.

Bingo - if something's being sold, it's because it's scarce:

http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity

If what you sell is not scarce... watch out.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#79

Post by bediger »

jodrellblank wrote: post #54
Suncho wrote: post #49

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are: A. The person is hired to create something. B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy. If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else…

So you want a world wiyh no more pro quality books, films, music or TV series?

"Pro quality" TV series? You mean like "CSI: Miami"? Or "Gilligan's Island"? Or do you mean movies like "The Smurfs" or the US version of "The Vanishing" or "Leave it To Beaver"?

Yes, I'd gladly do without all that TV and all the movies, and most or all of the books. Oh, and the popular music. Especially the music by Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato and Ashlee Simpson.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#80

Post by dazbradbury »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #46

The replacement value is actually much more than that. You could take that same equipment and shoot your entire lifetime and never get a shot like that. The internet is not about content. It's about distribution. It costs a LOT of money to use a human -- the artist -- to "distribute" that image from nature onto his digital camera. From there it costs zero to distribute it to the rest of the world. The answer is to ti…

Firstly, I'm loving http://caption-of-the-day.com/ - but it appears to be broken. "Click to View" only activates the top post (in Firefox 9 at least). Will be adding you to my list of sites to visit regularly though...

Secondly, whilst watermarking works for funny pictures, or people who solely sell artwork, it isn't something I would class as a solution. For people who mainly want to share their work, but simply don't want it ripped off, it's ruining the original artwork. Watermarks are ugly.

Also, the OP says he's not concerned with distribution...

Post reply on HN