Weekend Warriors - Destroying the Photography Industry?

Over the last couple of days, I have read several indignant pieces in the trade press and on-line forums by the so-called 'weekend-warriors'. These are part-time photographers who make an additional income by charging for their photographic services usually through weddings and social photography. Their anger has been stirred by a few professional photographers who have dared to raise the issue of regulating the industry.

It is something I have long toyed over but have been reticent to make a firm decision one way or the other. But after reading a letter by Stuart Taylor in the December issue of Professional Photographer, I feel I must respond. Yes the industry must be regulated! We have failed to regulate ourselves successfully and we are paying the costs in a catastrophic way!

I welcome competition from any newcomer to the industry and I feel potentially that both clients and myself benefit from the fresh challenges and new creative bars, which are raised,  by their entry. However, I want a level playing field and so do my compatriots. Over the last 10 years, photography has become far more accessible and affordable to new entrants and there is a perception (spread by some magazine editors of photo mags) that there are easy pickings to be made.

Stuart Taylor, in his rant against regulation and professional photographers, hit the nail on the head - "he often produces images of professional quality"- I am sorry but you need to produce professional quality images and service all of the time, not when you feel like it or capable of it. The most important word in professional photography is 'Consistency'. Clients don't mind if you consistently brilliant, good or average, as long as they know what they are going to get - they don't like nasty surprises. He then goes on to talk about buying expensive glass- any Muppet can do that as long as their bank manager bank-rolls them to do it. What I want is that these 'weekend-warriors' are bound to the same restraints and costs that we professional photographers are.

The things I would like to see through regulation are:

- They have Public Liability Insurance
- They have Professional Indemnity Insurance
- Provide Employers  Liability Insurance to anyone who helps them undertake a commission (2nd photographer/assistant)
- They are registered and declared their part-time earnings to the Inland Revenue
- Are they paying type 3/4 national insurance contributions
- Registered for VAT if their earnings are above the threshold
- Have they notified their car insurers of the secondary occupation
- Have they notified their landlords/mortgage company/council that part of their abode is being used for a part-time business and that they are complying and paying the additional monies due.
- Have given guarantees to their clients about safe, long term data storage solutions of their commissioned images
- Produced and provided COSHH risk assessments of how they work safely and their affect on others in a public environment.
- Have the requisite health and safety equipment if required
- Have all their electrical equipment (lighting, chargers, computers etc.) annually PAT tested
- Stated policy on copyright and licencing of images produced
- Regular Enhanced CRB checks (would you want anyone near your young children without one?)

If they complied with the above, I will happily compete against them. Please note, I have not asked for any regulation of creative input! I know that I am more than competent in this area to compete successfully. What I am tired of, is of people saying that these idiots will soon go out of business and you won't have to worry about them. The trouble is that they are only replaced by more. I feel it is about time the professional trade organisations stood up and stated what they expected what as minimum core standard of a professional (part-time or otherwise), seek the appropriate legislation and then seek to  monitor/certify/enforce that all practitioners comply. My God, even gas fitters, accountants and solicitors have achieved this!

I certainly can't image members of the public objecting to knowing that they are hiring a responsible, licenced and insured photographer. And I would happily pay a couple of thousand to prove I met these standards (if meant the idiots were driven out of the industry once and for all).

So Mr Taylor and Professional Photographer magazine, if you do read this, please take these comments on board - all we hardened and bitter Pros want is a level playing field (Please come back Grant Scott - the magazine has really taken a real nose dive since you left).

Richard
www.emphasis.biz
www.richardsouthall.co.uk

'I can't afford a professional photographer' - are clients lying to themselves?

Over the last few days, I have had some quite interesting and poignant conversations with several fellow professional photographers. These guys are specialists within their own fields whether it be fashion, cars, PR or architectural (me) but we have all been confronted recently by potentially new clients with the same cry 'we can't afford that? or 'it's just a photo - anyone can do that!'

It got thinking about how the industry and how clients perceive us has changed over the last 20 years. Also the ways in which our images are used and utilised by our clients. I think, until about 10 years ago, we were regarded as a vital link in the chain for a client to communicate their new service or product to market but this perception seems to have been somehow eroded by the introduction of digital imaging and web2.0.

I hear the arguments about photography has now become 'easier' with acceptable technical result produced by most compact cameras but nowhere recently do I hear about  the creative input of the photographer. With the growth of the digital economy, I have seen the decline of the traditional areas where my imaging has been used - brochures, ads,  journals, data sheets etc. But this has more compensated for with the growth on-line publishing and advertising. Now it is comparatively easy to distribute and view images of new products and services.

Which leads me to the point I began with, surely since people can easily access your relevant marketing materials (websites etc) or those of your competitors, surely having the best images on-line would give you the edge over your competitor and which will hopefully enable you to win that potential enquiry. Lets face it, we have all done it, once we have 'googled' a specific requirement and looked at a couple of result sites, we have nearly always have decided on a potential supplier before even speaking to them.

So why skimp on decent images that sell your service - what is this going to say to a potential client who is considering spending £2-3million or more on a project with you (either your poor pics will say your products or services are 'crap' or I don't really care how you perceive me as I don't care myself). So when you are considering spending £500/600 on servicing your BMW/Audi etc or installing new plotted plants around the office at £1000, could this money have been better spent on how people perceive you.

As one of my colleagues put it, he had been replaced by the 16yr old daughter of the chairman of major company who had bought her a £600 camera for Xmas. The chairman then couldn't understand the negative reaction of American multi-national who viewed the resulting catalogue/website and their subsequent withdrawl of their  custom.

So please think long and hard about how you want people to perceive you before selecting/commissioning the images you want to use - it could be a very dangerous false economy if you make the wrong choice..............

Richard
www.emphasis.biz
www.richardsouthall.co.uk