I give up!
jmphotocraft
Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
What is wrong with people? TWO of my friends have sons who played in and won the middle school STATE CHAMPIONSHIP hockey game just the other day, and NIETHER asked me to come take pics. Oh but they have iPhone pics on facebook of their kids posing with the trophy, so I guess that's good enough.
:rolleyes :dunno :scratch :huh :cry
:rolleyes :dunno :scratch :huh :cry
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
0
Comments
This is why most of us don't shoot sports on spec anymore. Sorry it took you until 2014 to realize that. I learned it in 2011. Not being a smart***, but its a new market that cell phone pics are the new norm. Doesn't matter what you or I can do with our 300 2.8s.
http://www.knippixels.com
iPhones, iPads, P&S and even SLR are used to produce very simple results.
Some weeks ago i went to my nephew practice and i had my camera with me. Obviously i took the chance to take some shots of him. I was in the stands, so the results weren't so great,
but to my surprise people from the club asked me for the photos. I told them that they weren't so great and i could take some shots from pitch level if they wanted. Well, after they saw the photos, they were kind of amazed and saying "uau, they're great. can we put them on our facebook?"
So, in the end, this little experience only reassured my feeling about amateur sports photography. It's simply nonexistence.
Sílvio Oliveira
Sílvio Oliveirawww.silviooliveira.net
Who said anything about shooting on spec? I'm just bowled over that nobody thought to have a photographer there at the state championship game, and that my friends didn't ask me. One of them is one of my biggest customers too. I will hope that the league did hire someone, as Ian suggests.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
It sounds like your friends maybe don't find a huge value in high level photographs of the action from a specific event that they can print out. They may be good clients because of your friendship and feel compelled to buy.
For example - my niece is an accomplished gymnast. Her HS team just won the state championship. My sister paid for some photos from one of the meets but only one. The rest she is happy taking cell phone pics of her daughter and a friend posing before or after. She has no need for another action shot - she's got some she likes.
Like I said, I think us sports photographers usually have a higher opinion of the importance of our product than the rest of the world does. Situations like the one you mention are good - they help bring us back down to earth.
There are some people who really want and value the photos, but usually because they are making money from them, or because they need them for something. As a parent, how many pics of your kid playing do you really need? I've got dozens of photos of my teams playing. Some very high level. One hangs in my house. I have tens of thousands of photos that I've taken. Many I like very much. Three hang in my house.
There is an inherent danger in thinking that what we do has some great importance. It doesn't for the most part. We may get lucky and get a few great photos. We may photograph the early days of some future Olympian or pro level athlete. But more than likely, our photos will get tossed in a drawer somewhere along with some some other mementos, a hammer, and maybe some old chewing gum.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
In my observation, if the kids are going to sift through a gallery of photos it's got to tell an accurate narrative of the game. They are less interested in great images than they are in having important moments captured, regardless of quality.
Lastly, I think part of the reason low quality images are just fine for those who attended the event is that an image is nothing more than a jog to the memory. It doesn't have to be high quality; it just has to be a pleasant reminder.
My daughter, a high school junior and heading to a D1 college for soccer, regularly travels the country for tournaments. I travel with her, cameras in tow. I photograph her games and usually send gallery links to the opposing teams for free and unlimited use. I'm a decent shooter. My work regularly appears in major media like SI and big newspapers. Sometimes my shots even get chosen for a collection of the best shots of the season for MLB and other pro sports. A decent shooter...
I would say as often as not the coaches of the opposing team do not even forward the gallery links to their teams. I rarely get a thank-you reply from the coaches, even more rarely from the parents in the event the link is forwarded, and never from the players. Just doesn't happen.
I've never taken this as a statement of my work (though perhaps I should), but rather a statement on the relative value of still imagery. In the end, most people don't care. A photo is a photo, and we all have phones that can take pictures. Who needs more?
I understand that most of us like to think our professional work is important and has value. We like to see that reflected by the respect and interest others have in our work, especially in professions that need an audience to be successful. Photography is just a hobby for me but is a profession for many with whom I work in the wells and sidelines of professional sports. The current trend of devaluing still imagery really takes a toll on them. I am very sympathetic and also thankful that I have a very fulfilling day job and appreciate photography for its own sake, independent of how much (or how little) anyone else enjoys my product.
I've been a fixture at the end of the soccer field for my 18 year old daughter's competitive team. Early on, the novelty and quality of the photos wowed the parents. They purchased and printed frequently. As the girls got older, the parents became less interested. The girls liked to look at the photos but had no interest in printing. I think this is a generational thing.
Fast forward to a few years ago when my youngest started soccer again at age 4. These parents ate up these "action" photos of their cute kids. They have never seen this type of sportrait and were eager to purchase. I had moms telling other moms and asking me to shoot their games. Sales were good. Now that she is 9, the cycle of dwindling sales and lack of parental interest has restarted.
I shoot mostly for my own interest. If I wanted to make money, I would park myself on the ground behind the goal at the 4 year old's soccer fields and shoot all day with my 300mm, f2.8 wide open. In the end, it's not about the great action, but the unique portraits you can capture.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Pretty much agrees with my observations as well. I've only once photographed youth soccer for sales, and that was a fundraiser for my daughter's club a few years back. It was a weekend U8-U12 tournament, and most of my sales were U8. I did get some sales for the U12 players who were about to be Bar/Bat Mitzvah-ed though.
Just so you sports guys and gals don't feel all alone, the same view has been starting to take hold in the children's portrait market.
Younger moms don't see the need like they used to. The upscale demographic is still there if your work is strong and you produce wall print quality work, but as for the masses, interest in prints is waning.
For those that a cell phone pic isn't good enough, these day's just about everyone has a friend who is a "photographer". I wonder if Best Buy sells scalpels? I'm gonna buy a good one so I can tell folks I'm a surgeon.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Another pov is that (hopefully) said children have been brought up to realise there's no absolute necessity to have their supposed 'once in a lifetime day' recorded by 'pros' in order to lead a happy married life together after the event.
As mentioned elsewhere ... pics that are 'less than perfect' are often the ones sought out by kids in later life for viewing ... rather than a collection of untypical posed / setup shots. Certainly, whenever I (and daughters) see pics like a pair of rings on a bed of rose petals (say) we just cringe and laugh.
To spend the amount of money often mentioned to legalise a (presumably) existing relationship just seems daft when said funds could - in many people's cases - be used for far better purposes.
Some of us can only hope that such children are sufficiently independently minded to realise that they can prioritise things somewhat differently from whatever prevailing fashion trends (or parents / family) are 'telling' them they should do.
Anyway, from a gear pov ... I suspect that in 15 -20 yrs time it'll be a totally different situation re 'capturing the day' ...
pp
Flickr
Or more generally speaking, any time they want to go back and look at the good ol' days. The smartphone generation is living their good ol' days right now, and probably isn't of that mindset yet. When they do grow into it I think they're in for a rude awakening.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Could be. Again, it depends on the person and whether or not your an album person or not. That's not so different than previous generations though. In pre-digital years it was the same way. Some families made albums and some didn't. Many people had a very small amount of albums. I suspect it's that way today. Someone at important family functions has an actual digital camera and provides pictures. the other 90% of the time the cell phone replaces not using any camera which was the norm for most people. So, in the end, I think people today will have just as many printed photos in albums as they did 20 years ago. They haven't gained or lost anything.
The only difference now is we're seeing professional photos de-valued because there are much cheaper alternatives.
What is diminishing is the need to pay someone for photos. Or pay a rate required to allow a photographer to earn their living. More and more people I know for example are using a family friend for Sr Photos - so instead of paying $600-700 for a studio to do it they're paying $150 or getting it for free. Cheap Portrait Innovations or mall stores for kids photos. Weddings are a bit of a hold out but more and more being serviced by people with side businesses so people paying $700 instead of $2000. Action sports work? That was a bubble, a novelty when no smartphone cameras existed and digital camera performance stunk.
I suppose the photography profession is heading towards a day when all that's left are high end pros and then part time hacks like myself. The B-grade full time pro will be out of a job.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Good insights into the current affairs of sports photography....
I think the biggest change to the sports photography field is that now images are the chief commodity. Once upon a time you hired a shooter for his or her skill, with the assumption that you'd get good images in return. Now most people just expect that others will take photos and they can pick and choose which ones they like. In this context, the reluctance to pay a professional to photograph an event is understandable.
As I've said before, I am a decent professional sports shooter and I rarely even get a thank-you from the opposing team coach or players when I send the link to the photos free of charge. In fact, in my years of doing this I'd say less than half the coaches reply, even fewer parents do, and exactly one player has ever emailed me back to express her gratitude. That's fine, as most people don't really understand what's involved in taking good photographs and I do it purely for the enjoyment.
My (extremely limited) experience of taking non-wildlife pics of people and /or their activities /pets has been a little different ... probably because no money was involved and they ended up with pics that were rather different from others they'd already got (or seen) ... imo, all associated with the fact that I was using my gear in a similar way to how it's used for waterfowl ... ie just above water level.
They invariably are aware of 'what's involved' tho ... because it's difficult to miss / overlook someone they see on a regular basis, grovelling around in the mud / whatever
The owner of this model emailed me to say that my pics of his model were ... dare I say ... 'creating waves'
(obviously not saying mine are unique ... just that they'd not see any others similar)
Of course, I accept that if money was being introduced into the equation, it'd be a totally different story... but then again I'd never pay for pics of (my - or anyone else's) kids playing sport, either.
pp
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=235568
Flickr
I understand that. What I don't understand is people who can be shown a really excellent professional image of their child and go "meh".
This is why I outfit myself with the best gear I can afford, to help set myself apart. (even if primarily by the sight of the big white lens) I think it's working. Last spring I made over $5k from little league. 225 orders from about 450 players in the league. This would not be a living wage for a full-time pro, but it's a nice chunk of change for a part-timer like me.
Well, you also have to value the activity or sport being played in order to value the photos, and you also have to be unable to get the same shot yourself.
Cool shot!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
And a good part of that reason will be because there will probably years of their childhood missing because the pics taken, crappy as they inevitably were, got lost when the phone was lost/ broken etc because few people I have heard of ever actually save the pics to their computer or a disk.
I never cease to be amazed at how people use their phone to take pics of subjects a mile away, Regularly in light you can barely see in let alone take a pic in and just seem to thrive on taking pics that would tax any high end camera let alone the limited capabilities of a phone.
It's a bad thing to get me started on phones. My kids do it and wear my wrath regularly. Camera's laid on around the place including high end compacts that take excellent shot by anyone's standard and they pull out some POS phone. Yeah, I know, the latest phones take great shots. Pigs arse they do! They are passable under perfect lighting conditions but so was my first camera, a Kodak 126 Instamatic with fixed everything.
I wrote a post last year aboout going to my son's Pre formal ( prom) and instantly being assumed to be a hired professional because I had an actual camera, not a phone. It just gobsmacked me how all these parents so proud and excited to see their kids all looking like adults that thought a phone was a perfectly acceptable way to record what by their own attendance was an important event in their kids lives. Unbelievable.
When I was doing sports, I came across a lot of well armed parents. It was not uncommon to see a few white lenses and obviously expensive glass in other colours as well.
Some of the keenest shooters were my best customer and a lot would look but never buy. I guess they think if they have spent money on a good camera they don't need to spend any more on a professionals pics. As lacking as some of their shots may be ( often lamented by the peoples own kids) Free makes up for a lot of of defects in quality.
I have fairly set parameters on what I'll shoot now particularly in kids sports which I don't do much of now. When I got into it an old hand gave me some guidelines and rules for what constitutes a good event to cover and I have added my own variations and parameters as well.
Some of those things were the cost to play, being able to get a shot parents couldn't get themselves and opportunity to sell.
I think the first two are of major importance.
Ball sports are a lot lower cost than say equine, motor sports etc. Here It's under $10 a game for Little Johhny to play soccer and the yearly joining fees would by under $100. Last year my son played baseball a few back the registration was around $120 for the year and they didn't pay anything per game. Uniforms are covered in the rego fees and are owned by the club and returned at the end of the year.
If you look at equine, even doing it on the cheap for a kid starting out is $10K at the entry level.
Horse, Float, Saddle, reins, tack, saddle cloth, rug, Farrier every 6 weeks, feed, vets and vaccinations.... and so it goes.
Parents seem far more disposed to spending say $50 on pics at a horse event because that's probably less than what they spent on fuel to drag 2 tons of trailer, horse and gear to the event and then there were the entry fess and other things thrown in. When they are spending $5 on a soccer game and live 5 min away, the spend on pics is a major expense moreso than an incidental for those involved in equine. ( Or motocross etc. )
The other thing is shooting position.
Shooting ball sports, I'm shooting from the sideline same as the parents. No going out into the middle of the action like with equine and maybe motocross or even getting a front row position with something like Cheer. When I can get a position the parents can't, even if it's not better just different, I have a USP to work from and leverage some sales with.
Now I like the prepaid model of no money no pics taken but with that exception which is hard to get across the line here ( I have tried!) there is no way I'd bother doing an event if I couldn't do onsite sales. Online is just a waste of time in my book unless you have the money first.
And the other thing is importance of an event.
Another weekly club game is no big deal. A state/ national event or grand final is something else. Some of the state and national events I covered had less kids than a big weekend club event but the sales were always double for a similar amount of people. Pretty much all you had to do was get the kid in a frame, quality of shot was far less relevant. I think it was all about the bragging rights to say the kid got into that high level event and there was the proof.
Bordered prints with the event name date and logo if there was one always sold REAL well. You never did much with the weekly club turnouts though.
I have no doubt the ease, low cost and availability of photography to the public has lessened the demand for pro shooters work but like many things in photography we really just have to roll with the punches and pick our targets better.
I had the biggest and most elaborate setup for doing sports events and covered the biggest and most prestigious in the country but at the end of the day, The returns didn't come near justifying the effort and investment.
I found something else that paid better and sold up the event trailer and gear that was worth anything. This year I'm going back to T&I again because I have come up with a USP with that which gives me an edge over the competition and something to leverage. I also find that most parents here will sprig for the yearly shots where they won't for an action pic.
We aren't going to ever change peoples intents no matter how flawed we can see they are.
Now, even with regards to photography - sports photographers get so caught up in technical details. Yes those technical details help but only if the subject is of value. A photo with their child smiling just has more perceived value to more moms than a photo of their kid at the plate. Which is why they will buy the school pictures or T&I and shrug their shoulders at a very fine, sharp, shallow DOF photo of their kid at the plate. Even for parents of star athletes, how many photos do you really need? They all end up being similar. Certainly not worth paying for multiple times - parents like to see their child progress and grow. Action sports photos, no matter how well done, don't necessarily meet their requirements. A snapshot, of less technical quality that still captures the essence of their child is going to have more perceived value.
Yep, not only your time in travel, shooting, post processing, marketing etc no subtract other business costs (obviously equipment is amortized over several years but include the cameras, lenses, software, insurance, computer, etc....)
It's more than that. The increase in quality of the shot a hired shooter provides has to justify the added cost. Lots of people can't take or get shots that a seasoned sports shooter can. That isn't the deciding factor - the deciding factor is whether or not what they CAN get is GOOD ENOUGH. If the perceived value of your product is not great enough to justify the cost they won't buy.
Again, nothing new here. Action sports photography for print sales was a blip on the history time line. It's a novelty item and still is. There was just a bubble when DSLRs came along - that bubble is mostly gone. But, what hasn't changed? Those same parents STILL buy T&I packages. They're just conditioned to it. Same as it always was. AND, the hourly rate is infinitely better than action.
Because it's their children.
No! ;-)
I think if the action shot has a good face, it can equal the importance of the T&I.
One or two per year per sport. Less if the uniform doesn't change from year to year.
In my experience nearly all the people who buy the T&I also buy action.
Only if they value getting something for nothing above all else.
Of course.
Right, if I were making a full time business out of this I would not bother with action shots unless specifically hired for a significant premium.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yes, their children are important - your PHOTOS of their children are not. Big difference.
Can't help you there
Sure it can. Unfortunately that shot isn't always there, and then there's the problem of the potential customer seeing that shot. And then there's the question of whether the customer wants to buy one more good shot of their kid. At the end of the day they buy the T&I because it's easy to do so. Action, not so much. Don't get me wrong - I'm with you - I prefer action shots. I make cards for my son based on him playing not posed T&I. I prefer great shots of my son in real life vs. the boring school pictures. I just recognize the majority of the world isn't like us. Other photographer hobbyists are - but not 90% of the population.
I don't even think most parents want that. At least not to buy. They have snapshots to print to put in the scrapbook that are GOOD ENOUGH. Plenty of phone snaps to put on social media, no problem there. But most parents don't need to BUY them because they have nothing to do with them. The T&I trading cards are fine to give to family to put on their fridge but it's not like family needs an 8x10 print of little Johnny hiting a baseball to replace last year's photo of little Johnny hitting a baseball.
Our experiences are different. I would also say that if I sell a $40 T&I package to a parent that was based upon 15 minutes of time. How much time is invested in selling $40 in action shots?
no - not at all. Just that there are attributes of a photo that are of much greater importance to them than technical quality. They don't care about how good the technical quality is of your shot of Johnny at the plate. Johnny playing on the beach with his sister is a much more important memory to them. Guaranteed 99% of the time. For most of the population when they use photos to remind themselves they're looking at those family photos - not 32 photos of Johnny at the plate over 5 years. There's just not enough of an emotional connection to that for them. NOW, if you happen to be making photos at those important moments, THOSE would be worth the money. But Johnny at the plate year-over-year isn't an important enough memory to pay for.
As a sports photographer, I appreciate both. But I know when my family wants photos of my son they really don't enjoy the action shots nearly as much as they do the family ones or vacation ones or just cute ones. They don't care as much about an action shot of him playing soccer.
30 years from now I'm going to be looking at photos like this of my son leading the kindergarten graduation:
rather than a shot of him playing soccer:
Yes, the shots of his first tee-ball at bat are cute. But no one in my family cares about a picture of his 25th basketball game. The memory triggered by the action shot just isn't powerful in most cases. As a parent AND a photographer, that first shot above is still more precious even though not technically as good as the action shots.
I'd say they're more important than the mundane things you listed.
Like I said, it's not a viable business model for a full timer. I just think it's fun and so do the kids in town, and that's the biggest reason I do it. One year I told my kids I was going to take a break from doing Little League photos and just coach both their teams. They said "Noooo! Do the pictures, it makes us cool!" Imagine that, a Dad doing something in public that makes their kids feel cool and not embarrassed!!
Ok, I misunderstood, I thought you meant a snapshot of Johnny at the plate was going to be more valuable than MY shot of Johnny at the plate.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
qft!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I think that it is also instant gratification and no lag time that makes cell phone photos acceptable.
http://shphotos.smugmug.com/
Well that is a very nice way of looking at it. I would like to believe you're right!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
That's not really a sound analogy.
Some hack wielding a camera isn't going to adversely affect someone's health.
You wielding a razor sharp instrument of mayhem, though...