| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2005 02:43:40 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I enjoy the game and my shots are improving so I'm going to 1-2 games every week right now, but am also looking forward to spring when HS sports will again move out into the daylight. |
I hate to ask this question because it really boils my blood... I've thought about taking pictures of local high school games, mostly for my own experience, but stopped. Why? I'm a male in my 30's, and I just don't want some psycho parent thinking I'm looking to exploit their kids.
Have any of you who shoot games ever had an experience with people questioning your intent? Is this all paranoia in my mind?
Thanks - this has been a very enlightening thread! |
I ran into this once at a figure skating "test session" at a local rink I was scouting because they play HS hockey there. I approached one woman who said she was in charge and was told it was ok but no flash. Later another woman, who apparently out ranked the one who was in charge, told me that some parents had concerns and asked me not to shoot the session. No biggie. I was polite and left. Later I found that no flash is a pretty firm rule for all figure skating competitions.
HS sports competitions are basically public exhibitions. People are taking pictures from the stands all the time and no one suspects them of being perverts.
I think the way you conduct yourself goes a long toward being perceived as a serious photographer, act like you've been there before and be willing to adjust what you do to accomodate reasonable restrictions. Be respectful and remember that to the extent that you want to be treated differently than the average fan in the stands, you are essentially a guest in their house. If anyone asks, I tell them to write down their e-mail addy and I'll send them a shot if I get a good one of their son.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:43:56 PM · #77 |
Sorry, John...you might have already said this...when a parent asks you for prints, you sell them the prints directly, right?
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:47:04 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Yeah, and you have a black camera, Terry...what will I do with my lowly silver rebel?
Just kidding...it's a stigma created on websites like this one... |
I still have that silver one too :)
Let me tell you my 20D looks like a toy compared to the ones they have. Black or not.
Honestly I am not intimidated by their equipment, I am intimidated by their years of experience.
When at a party I was asked 'who are you with' or 'where are you from'.
I had no answer besides New Jersey :)
I will get to see what its like first hand soon, when I get to go along with one on assignments. I can't wait.
Message edited by author 2005-01-19 14:48:05.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:52:36 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Yeah, and you have a black camera, Terry...what will I do with my lowly silver rebel?
Just kidding...it's a stigma created on websites like this one... |
Actually, I was flat out told I couldn't work for the Sun using a 300D (the largest paper in Calgary..or second largest..whichever). So, no, it's not just a website stigma :-)
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:01:08 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Yeah, and you have a black camera, Terry...what will I do with my lowly silver rebel?
Just kidding...it's a stigma created on websites like this one... |
Actually, I was flat out told I couldn't work for the Sun using a 300D (the largest paper in Calgary..or second largest..whichever). So, no, it's not just a website stigma :-) |
Did they say it was because of the color??
It is a slower camera for certain things such as sports photograhy...i just can't imagine a paper not allowing it.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:02:20 PM · #81 |
I would also like to know why, Goldberry.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:12:52 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Sorry, John...you might have already said this...when a parent asks you for prints, you sell them the prints directly, right? |
Normally I don't provide them with prints when they ask. I give them one of my cards with my email address on it and let them send me a message. I send them a high enough res digital file so they can print it themselves acceptably at 4x6. I let them know that I can provide them with prints up to 24x36 for my normal print pricing if they are interested, but I have not received any requests for larger prints yet. I have, however, managed to sell a few of my own prints to some of these people by giving them a link to my print gallery when they contact me.
I could probably make a few dollars by selling them prints when they ask, but I just don't do it. Making money from shooting at these events is not part of my agenda, so I don't solicit that. Moms and Dads just want some decent photos of their kids playing ball, and I can provide them occasionally and there is no cost for me in doing it. I'm already there for the newspaper and I'm getting my $40 for being there.. lol
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:30:41 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Sorry, John...you might have already said this...when a parent asks you for prints, you sell them the prints directly, right? |
Normally I don't provide them with prints when they ask. I give them one of my cards with my email address on it and let them send me a message. I send them a high enough res digital file so they can print it themselves acceptably at 4x6. I let them know that I can provide them with prints up to 24x36 for my normal print pricing if they are interested, but I have not received any requests for larger prints yet. I have, however, managed to sell a few of my own prints to some of these people by giving them a link to my print gallery when they contact me.
I could probably make a few dollars by selling them prints when they ask, but I just don't do it. Making money from shooting at these events is not part of my agenda, so I don't solicit that. Moms and Dads just want some decent photos of their kids playing ball, and I can provide them occasionally and there is no cost for me in doing it. I'm already there for the newspaper and I'm getting my $40 for being there.. lol |
Makes sense, thanks.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:33:59 PM · #84 |
LOL sorry guys, not because of color but because of performance (and durability I'd imagine).
The photo editor was all ready to take me onboard until I said that was the camera I owned (at that time)...then he became very skeptical.
I don't blame him really, not after using much better cameras since then and knowing what everyone else is shooting with .. and not just for looks, but for performance. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:36:35 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I don't blame him really, not after using much better cameras since then and knowing what everyone else is shooting with .. and not just for looks, but for performance. |
I would just assure him that if I got the job I would immediately buy a 20d or whatever model he wanted me to buy.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:59:55 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I would just assure him that if I got the job I would immediately buy a 20d or whatever model he wanted me to buy. |
At that time I didn't know what to say or think. I was really new to photography and couldn't afford anything else so I chalked it up to him being a jerk. lol |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 04:33:14 PM · #87 |
I find that a bit odd as well. The camera itself is not really as important as the lenses.
When I had my 'interview' at my local newspaper, the photo editor was interested in the gear I was using because he knew he was planning to send me into the worst possible light situations to get photos. By sending me on an assignment, he needed to be assured that I would return with some usable images. He also took a gamble on me by sending me on a sports assignment when I had no previous experience with sports photography.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 04:46:21 PM · #88 |
$10000-15000 for a few 1D bodies and some pro lenses is nothing as far as a business expenditure is concerned. I'd think (and quite rightly) that if I were a photo editor for a large newspaper and someone came to me as a photographer and didn't even have what amounts to the basic necessities for photojournalism (waterproof equipment is a biggie) then I'd quite rightly be reluctant to hire you. Photo editors know a thing or two about equipment. They know that someone with a 1D and a 16-35 is going to be able to get closer to a subject than someone with a 300D and the same lens. It's not rocket science. In a world where every photojournalist around has two 1D bodies, one with a 24-70 and one with a 70-200 and therefore better equipped at getting good shots than someone with a Rebel, why would they hire someone with little experience and amateur equipment? There's no God-given right for someone to get paid just because they have a camera and fancy themselves handy with the equipment. You must act in a professional manner all the way from having the equipment to having experience as well as a good eye and the ability to get yourself in a position to get meaningful shots. There aren't many jobs out there where it's acceptable to use amateur equipment (none I'd say) to do professional work. There's a reason for that.
Message edited by author 2005-01-19 16:48:18. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 04:57:48 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
$10000-15000 for a few 1D bodies and some pro lenses is nothing as far as a business expenditure is concerned. I'd think (and quite rightly) that if I were a photo editor for a large newspaper and someone came to me as a photographer and didn't even have what amounts to the basic necessities for photojournalism (waterproof equipment is a biggie) then I'd quite rightly be reluctant to hire you. Photo editors know a thing or two about equipment. They know that someone with a 1D and a 16-35 is going to be able to get closer to a subject than someone with a 300D and the same lens. It's not rocket science. In a world where every photojournalist around has two 1D bodies, one with a 24-70 and one with a 70-200 and therefore better equipped at getting good shots than someone with a Rebel, why would they hire someone with little experience and amateur equipment? There's no God-given right for someone to get paid just because they have a camera and fancy themselves handy with the equipment. You must act in a professional manner all the way from having the equipment to having experience as well as a good eye and the ability to get yourself in a position to get meaningful shots. There aren't many jobs out there where it's acceptable to use amateur equipment (none I'd say) to do professional work. There's a reason for that. |
The answer is simple. We are talking about 'stringers' and not staff photographers. Staff photographers usually get their gear provided by the publication. I think it's a bit overzealous for a newspaper to expect to get stringers with that amount/type of gear for what they are willing to pay them.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 04:59:03 PM · #90 |
I laughed when I said "I chalked it up to him being a jerk" because obviously he knew more than I did. However, having something better than a 300D and some decent lenses isn't the same as dropping $10k on gear that you don't need yet and quite frankly, aren't getting paid squat to use.
JTF, as much as I love reading long posts stating the obvious, I don't think all you say actually pertains to teh type of beginner paper-photography we're talking about.
P.S. Like JM said, pretty much all papers provide at least partial equipment. At least all the ones I've talked to do. The last big photographer I talked to said he doesn't even own ANY of his own gear, and he was lugging around about $15k worth at the time he told me that.
Message edited by author 2005-01-19 17:03:30. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 05:17:13 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
... Then you have the 'paps' who chase celebrities all day long - no experience needed apart from being able to use a camera (and manual focus everything). ... |
I'm curious, why manual focus?
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 05:23:14 PM · #92 |
You just said you approached the Herald. That's not 'beginner paper photography'. As for the 'long post stating the obvious' thing, well, I don't know if you've noticed around here but subtlety doesn't go over so well. In my humble little opinion, by the way, there's really no such thing as 'beginner paper photography'. As someone in the midst of doing a professional degree I have a good deal of sensitivity towards what constitutes professional behaviour, and what doesn't.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I laughed when I said "I chalked it up to him being a jerk" because obviously he knew more than I did. However, having something better than a 300D and some decent lenses isn't the same as dropping $10k on gear that you don't need yet and quite frankly, aren't getting paid squat to use.
JTF, as much as I love reading long posts stating the obvious, I don't think all you say actually pertains to teh type of beginner paper-photography we're talking about.
P.S. Like JM said, pretty much all papers provide at least partial equipment. At least all the ones I've talked to do. The last big photographer I talked to said he doesn't even own ANY of his own gear, and he was lugging around about $15k worth at the time he told me that. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 02:23:09 PM EDT.
