There are articles over at TWIP and Strobist talking about photographing subjects for free, i.e. not charging for money for your services. I think that they are both great articles, but I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say that you provide your services for free in the context of these articles. I think that "doing it for free" implies that you receive nothing for your efforts. I don't think that is the case.
When you photograph for "free" I think you are actually trading value with your client but you are using something other than money to represent that value. In the "free" transaction the client obviously receives a piece of photographic work they can use in a limited context. As photographers, we can all see the value of that image. What the photographer receives in return is less tangible, but no less valuable. The value is listed pretty well by David Hobby and Scott Bourne in their respective posts so I won't rehash it here.
I think that it is more accurate to describe photographing for "free" as a barter of services rather than simply a one-sided transaction. With the economy going the way it is, it might not be a bad idea to start brushing up on those bartering skills now.
When you photograph for "free" I think you are actually trading value with your client but you are using something other than money to represent that value. In the "free" transaction the client obviously receives a piece of photographic work they can use in a limited context. As photographers, we can all see the value of that image. What the photographer receives in return is less tangible, but no less valuable. The value is listed pretty well by David Hobby and Scott Bourne in their respective posts so I won't rehash it here.
I think that it is more accurate to describe photographing for "free" as a barter of services rather than simply a one-sided transaction. With the economy going the way it is, it might not be a bad idea to start brushing up on those bartering skills now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment