Selling photos online... official MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

fuzzybear01

Gap have been in trouble for 'borrowing' a photo from a person's flickr and I think it's a similar thing to what you are proposing to do. You would have to go out and take the original photo yourself to prevent the photographer suing you for producing a derivative work. Even then you run the risk of Porsche suing you.

Gap story: http://jezebel.com/5748062/did-the-gap-steal-this-image-from-flickr

darich

dazzer21 wrote: »

What potential copyright issues may there be regarding the initial use of the original picture?

There is no "potential" issue here at all.
It is an "actual" issue.

You'd be breaching copyright in two ways - firstly by taking someone else's image and using it/selling it.
Secondly, altering that image would probably also be a breach.

To do what you're proposing, you'd need permission from the copyright owner and you'd almost defintely need to pay them a fee which could be anything from simply crediting them with taking the original photo, through to paying them a few pounds or to the extreme, paying them thousands.

To do either or both, you'd need permission from whoever owns the copyright. That's normally the photographer but not always.

stroggy2

hello all

I'm looking to start going to corporate and private functions to take 'portrait' photos of people during the event etc, how much do people usually charge for prints for these types of photos? All suggestions and handy tips welcome.

Thanks in advance

patman99

Most companies tend to either employ in-house photographers, or contract out to a photography studio. They are likely to only pay a set fee for the evening, with the company retaining copyright to the images.

Private functions are another matter entirely. A lot of people holding private functions such as weddings and christenings tend to book an entire package so you may start at 7:00 am and finish at nearly midnight, so you really need to work out your costings carefully or you could end up making little or no profit.

Try building a portfolio of such images 'staged' by friends and relatives (if you can find a suitable venue).

I have no idea what kit you already have, but any photographer looking at getting into this sort of area should have at least 2 full-frame DSLR's (most use either Canon 5D or Nikon D3), at least 2 flashes and a good set of lenses (typically one body would be fitted with a flash and a 50mm f1.2 and the other with a flash and a 75-200mm f1.5 - 4.0 lens).

darich

patman99 wrote: »

I have no idea what kit you already have, but any photographer looking at getting into this sort of area should have at least 2 full-frame DSLR's (most use either Canon 5D or Nikon D3), at least 2 flashes and a good set of lenses (typically one body would be fitted with a flash and a 50mm f1.2 and the other with a flash and a 75-200mm f1.5 - 4.0 lens).

2 DSLRs is defintely a good idea but not sure about your lens choice.
Firstly the 50mm f1.2 while great isn't really a necessity for a wedding.
a 50mm f1.8 at around 1/10 of the price would do just fine.

Second......never heard of a lens with aperture range of f1.5-4.

My friend and I did a wedding.....50mm f1.8, 24-70 f2.8, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8.
No problems at all and got all the shots we needed.
I've since upgraded my camera but I think at the time we were both using Canon 20D bodies.....I may have used the Canon 5D I now have but think it was the 20D.

I know you said "typically" and it's just a suggestion so I thought it worthwhile to point out that a wedding can be done with lesser equipment.:beer:

julianfal

Hi all, just wanted also mention imagegate com. This is an other great website to sell images online.:T

patman99

Looks like I'm going to have to update the list of links (be nice for it to be a 'sticky' if the mods are reading this).

Over the last month, I have learned the photographers don't 'do' weddings, they 'accept wedding commissions' and that they do nothing for 'free', but it is ok to 'offer a concessionary image' as this has a 'perceived value'.

Most wedding snappers have 2 bodies, one fitted with a 50mm lens and the other with a 70-100mm zoom.

When shooting 'street' a range-finder with a 50mm lens and another with a 28mm make the photographer look more like a tourist and thus attract less attention.

ScottishSnapper

Interesting to read some of the entries in this thread but more interesting to see that it has died.

Photography at all levels except in the high investment, high skill threads such as Commercial is also dying a death. Press photographers are being put out of work daily, Universities are churning out bright-eyed graduates who on emerging from the protected corridors of learning find themselves in a desert of opportunity. Stock photography is in a mess with once good revenues from online sales plummeting as more and more stock websites participate in a race to the bottom. That imagegate - looks nice but a guy who's been in there since later 2011 and has 1500 images on line hasn't sold a one! Weddings - every numpty with a SLR thinks they can do them - I wouldn't risk my best day to them. Without lots of redundancy in equipment, a back up person and damn good plan, you really risk getting yourself well sued.

Save money by not getting into photography and help the rest of us who have to find a way to make it work, by NOT keywording your pictures and by including a watermark on every shot. Doing that is in your interest - anyone who really likes your pic will email you to ask for a copy. Then you can ask for a tenner for it by PayPal and everyone's happy. Images are being stolen daily by the big newspapers as they endure the pain of their extended death so look after your efforts.

A note to anyone thinking of getting into photography, like newspapers, the old model of the profession is dying and there simply isn't money in it.

Wedding snappers even have been rumbled too - they still try to charge the prices they applied to film format weddings when really the customer knows it doesn't cost that much to get a decent print! A new model of business is developing but it is being stifled by students doing it for nothing (and messing it up!). Eventually, when all those people who think that because they get a few lucky shots each week they could be great photographers realise that acutally, the game isn't all it's cracked up to be any more may be things will settle down but in the meantime protect what you do and leave the big jobs to those committed to the skill and art of photography.

Pro Photography is a mugs game just now and little to do with art for 99% of the working day. It's poorly paid and hard graft at a desk. Steer clear of it and just enjoy taking pics.

Thanks for reading - this may seem like a rant, but believe me, I know I'm right!

nuttywoman1

budgetflyer wrote: »

Sorry to put a neg in here,
but your average digital camera out of Argos or Comet just doesn't produce the kind of quality photos that people pay reasonable money for. Thats why some cameras cost 3K and others 50 quid !
It really isnt a case of getting a nice photo of Blackpool Tower on a sunny day with your [SIZE=-1]casio exilim[/SIZE] (good camera btw for holiday snaps, but a real photographer would cut his wrists b4 using it for an assignment)

Photoshop and the likes of CANT increase the quality. you need a better camera for that.Most of the quality images are sold in bmp format for graphic design etc.
I think thats why those sites set those parameters - to discourage amature time wasters.

I totally disagree.
I have 2 very different cameras. A cheap kodak C195 & a Lumix FZ48. When i look through the photo's, some taken with the cheaper camera are better quality than with the more expensive one.
So while a good camera helps, it's what is behind the camera that can make all the difference.

1940sGal

Selling photography online is an extremely difficult task for even seasoned pro's.

While i mean no offence here, I'm afraid the example below is a perfect one for the way in which the digital age has shaped modern photography.

full-time-mum wrote: »

My OH takes good photos, currently only of family related subjects, but I feel sure that he is good enough to make some money out of his hobby.
He is becoming a dab hand at photoshop too.

What can I say to persaude him to have a go?
What sort of images should he take (DDs birthday shots aren't going to sell, obviously)?
Where would be the best place to start?

You get someone going out, they buy themselves a DSLR, they take a few decent shots and (usually) a member of their family goes 'oh wow they're so good i really like them you could sell them'. But what the person with the camera fails to think about is that he/she's being told this by a family member i.e someone who is bound to support you and encourage you and generally be complimentary. So they go away thinking they're the bees knees and try to sell their work, or worse start calling themselves a professional and start charging people for what is usually anything but.

For instance, how many stories have you seen about couples getting a rough deal on their wedding shots because they took the cheap option? I.e some bloke with a dslr told them he could do their wedding for £100 and in the end, they get terrible photos. Shocking! (not)

This entire thing has devalued the entire photography industry. Now don't get me wrong i've no problem with people who have real talent trying to make it in this industry. But I speak from experience when I say that most people who think they can sell their images online to make a few extra quid a month belong in the above brackets.

Trust me, I'm not just ranting here I'm speaking as a photographer who sees that sort of thing day in day out.

To add to the Stock Photography debate though I will say this. People do make a living from this, people do make this their main and often only source of income so it can be done. But quite often these people are uploading thousands of images a month. And i'm not exaggerating. So to go down that route you would have to give it a serous amount of your time and if you're doing it simply to boost your income, you're not likely to make much.

Ok, rant over