Parents vs. Pros

[mabas9395]

I wanted to ask this question in a forum that is a little more equally balanced between photographers and parents and not one of the "pro-photog" forums.

My DS11 is part of a Select soccer league and we often go to tournaments all over the state. We encourage parent involvement so we ask each parent to volunteer in some way to help out (treasurer, fundraising, snacks, etc). Since I have a dSLR with a big white lens, I was asked to be the team photographer. My job, obviously, is to take pictures of the team during games and tournaments. I take pictures of all the kids, do some quick editing and put them on my smugmug site and parents can download any and all pictures they want for free or order them through Smugmug (I don't get any money from it).

My question/issue is I feel kind of funny doing this for other parents when a tournament has hired a professional photographer to shoot the games. Since I'm not charging anyone I am not breaking any rules. And I have no problem taking pictures of my own kids, that's what I got my photo equipment for. But when I do it for other parents on our team, I feel like I am stealing business from the professionals. I'm sure my pictures are not as good as the pro's, but they are definitely better than what the other parents would get with their P&S. And you can't beat the price. There is no reason why the parents can't buy from the pro's at the tournament, but often when the pros see me there with my white lens, they don't stick around long.

I have never asked to be paid for my photos (yet), but I still try to be sympathetic to what the professionals go through (getting a quality sports action shot is not as easy as it looks) and the growing popularity of dSLR's has made the pro's job harder. But every parent on the team is supposed to contribute their "time, money or talents" to help support the team, and this is one thing I can do.

So should I just stick to taking photos of my kids when there is a hired pro? I don't think I feel bad enough to do that, but is it normal to feel funny about this or should I just not worry about it?

I'd be interested to hear what thoughts and/or experiences people on each side of the issue have.

Thanks,
David

 

[MICKEY88]

I wanted to ask this question in a forum that is a little more equally balanced between photographers and parents and not one of the "pro-photog" forums.

My DS11 is part of a Select soccer league and we often go to tournaments all over the state. We encourage parent involvement so we ask each parent to volunteer in some way to help out (treasurer, fundraising, snacks, etc). Since I have a dSLR with a big white lens, I was asked to be the team photographer. My job, obviously, is to take pictures of the team during games and tournaments. I take pictures of all the kids, do some quick editing and put them on my smugmug site and parents can download any and all pictures they want for free or order them through Smugmug (I don't get any money from it).

My question/issue is I feel kind of funny doing this for other parents when a tournament has hired a professional photographer to shoot the games. Since I'm not charging anyone I am not breaking any rules. And I have no problem taking pictures of my own kids, that's what I got my photo equipment for. But when I do it for other parents on our team, I feel like I am stealing business from the professionals. I'm sure my pictures are not as good as the pro's, but they are definitely better than what the other parents would get with their P&S. And you can't beat the price. There is no reason why the parents can't buy from the pro's at the tournament, but often when the pros see me there with my white lens, they don't stick around long.

I have never asked to be paid for my photos (yet), but I still try to be sympathetic to what the professionals go through (getting a quality sports action shot is not as easy as it looks) and the growing popularity of dSLR's has made the pro's job harder. But every parent on the team is supposed to contribute their "time, money or talents" to help support the team, and this is one thing I can do.

So should I just stick to taking photos of my kids when there is a hired pro? I don't think I feel bad enough to do that, but is it normal to feel funny about this or should I just not worry about it?

I'd be interested to hear what thoughts and/or experiences people on each side of the issue have.

Thanks,
David

you are thinking too much, shoot your team and have fun...

I have to wonder though, what kind of pro doesn't stick around just because they see your white lens

 

[Gdad]

A buddy of mine coaches youth soccer- they do not have a 'hired pro' or any capable parents- and asked me to take some team photos. Since I had never shot sports befors I thought it would be fun. After a few games I got BLASTED by a soccer mom for charging $5 for a 5x7 of which $1 was for processing and $1 went back to the team. I think I made maybe $25 working three different games and tournaments- I doubt it even covered the gas cost. So I say have at it- I can't imagine too many pro's are really making a living at youth sports.

 

[Abby's Dad]

First off, the "pro" who walked off when he saw your big bad white lens was not a pro. He may have been a pro-wannabe who hopped on the offer to shoot the tournament for print sales, but pros shoot for a fee, a guaranteed minimum, or are shooting for themselves (newspaper or magazine sales). No matter how good you are or aren't, you have no effect on them or their business. Your bigger problem is the moms like Gdad ran into who think that your time and equipment are worth nothing, or the other parents, who will sooner or later accuse you of favoring your son over theirs with the number of pictures, etc. Go in with your eyes open, and do your thing as you see fit.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

This is a topic that raises extreme passions. We had a professional photographer of high school sports come talk at our photo club last year. He made it very clear that he really disliked parents that gave away photos of other people's kids. He didn't have a problem if they sold them at the "market rate" and competed with him fairly, but he felt that giving them away was totally unfair.

There is a thread on this subject at the usually peaceful Smugmug forum. You can see the same attitude from the pro shooters there. I disagree with the pros on this, but in the absence of someone else making their case, I'll give it an attempt here.

There are two problems with amateurs giving away photos at these events. First, it deprives the professional photographer of an opportunity to make a livelihood. Now matter how good you and your equipment are, it's awfully hard to compete with free. The second problem is that the amateurs are driving the pros out of the business. That leaves parents that don't happen to have a semi-pro photographer friend without someone to get pictures from. It also means that even parents with great cameras lose the opportunity to buy even better professional shots on those occasions that they want them.

OK, that's the pros case as I understand it. I'm sure that someone that buys into that can represent it much better than I can.

Here's my take. Let the parents decide. It's their kids. They don't owe professional photographers an opportunity to make a living. If parents are concerned about the lack of professional photographers covering their games, they can ban the giving away of pictures, set price floors, or even ban unlicensed photographers from using good equipment. Absent such an arrangement, I feel free to take pictures and distribute them as I see fit (with respect for the wishes of those I'm shooting, of course).

This debate somewhat parallels other economic displacement debates. It's similar to the ethical question of whether it is OK to offshore software development or tech support, or the question of whether it is OK to higher immigrants to do your lawn work, or whether you should respect picket lines when unions go on strike. Should you allow Walmart into your area when you know it will drive higher priced/higher service competitors out of the area (or out of business)? What is fair competition and what is not? What do we owe our fellow citizens? These are meant as rhetorical questions to spur you to see this debate in other contexts, I don't really want to argue them here.

GDad, don't feel too bad about someone complaining about a measly $5. I was taking photos of my son's soccer game one season. My wife was the coach. We had a lot of trouble getting any of the other parents to volunteer and help out in any way. During one of the games, one of the other parents complained that I was late (relative to my usual schedule, I guess) in getting pictures from the prior week posted. At first I assumed that she was joking. Her follow-up comments made it clear that she wasn't. She was truly annoyed at the delay. It took just about every last reserve of good manners for me to remain polite through the remainder of that conversation. I wasn't charging anyone anything for the pictures. I had made no commitments. Neither she, her husband, nor her parents (who sometimes attended) offered to help in any way. It was petty of me, but her son was in very few pictures after that.

 

[Anewman]

anytime I have am the "hired" or "contracted" photographer for a league or tournament, I always get it in writing that I(we) would be the only one with field access. This is not because of the competition, It is because I would rather not get in anyones way and demand the same in return.

Parents would still be allowed to shoot any equipment they own from the spectator areas, but not on the field.

When it comes to soccer,I have only done High School where the field is pretty much the football field with track around it, parents have to shoot from outside the fenced off track. But with some youth leagues parents are allowed to sit right on the field on the sidelines, the pro should have thought of that before taking the job.

 

[webshark3]

Now that everyone and their mother has a DSLR, it's hurting real (and I mean real) wedding photographers also.

On the flip side, As long as the school/event hasn't contacted an exclusive photograpger (as in no one else is allowed to take any type of photos), then I'd happily shoot away from where ever I was allowed. I can't take busniess away from someone I had no intention to buy from in the first place.

Speaking of which, I was UTTERLY SHOCKED the first time I asked a DIS Photo guy to "shoot one more" with my DSLR. And they were happy to do it. I buy PhotoCDs everytime now.

 

[ukcatfan]

I am a firm believer of economic survival of the fittest. If they are not offering something premium in quality at a price that the demand can bear, then they need to stop the bellyaching and find a different job. If their stuff is better, then they should have no problem selling it. I am with Anewman on the field access thing. The last thing an organized event needs is a bunch of people down by the field getting in each other's way trying to get pictures. It can take away from the real reason everyone is there, which is the game. Besides, how many parents need a picture of their son, the all-star quarterback, being sacked by some monster twice his size???

Kevin

 

[alan]

My take is slightly different.

I've got a day job, it feeds my kids and me pretty reasonably, I'm comfortably off and that's nice.

I also have a hobby - I shoot stage productions and sell CDs of the pics I've taken to the participants (http://www.stagepics.co.uk)

But I don't want to make it harder for anyone else to feed his kids. So I explicitly state that I do not want an society to "ditch" a pro photographer for me.

At the end of the day, I have to take my clients' word for it. But it makes me sleep more easily at night.

That probably just proves that I am a namby-pamby European liberal

regards,
/alan

PS I don't think any pro photographer would be willing to put in the post processing work that I do for the amount of profit from the job...

 

[Daysleeper40]

I believe it is up to the pro to set any boundries before taking the job - i.e. who has field access etc. I would imagine a real pro would have a set fee anyway and any actual sales would be on top of this fee?

Don't overthink it - you are contributing the best way you know how

Also - a little asside re payment - I don't think it would be unreasonable to want paying if I were actually getting the pictures printed myself, purely to cover costs. However, it sounds like the other parents also put time (and possibly money?) in by bringing snacks or doing fundraising. I don't suppose they get paid for their time/effort either?

 

[Gdad]

I find the refernces to "True" professional photographers interesting. Not to get off topic but what criteria would you guys say defines a "True" professional? Being hired and paid by the league? Having a website? Having a nice camera? Having a white lens? Just curious.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I find the refernces to "True" professional photographers interesting. Not to get off topic but what criteria would you guys say defines a "True" professional? Being hired and paid by the league? Having a website? Having a nice camera? Having a white lens? Just curious.

I simplify the definitions like this:

1) Professional Photographer - someone that makes their primary living off of the income from their photography or does photography as a full time job.

2) Semi-Pro Photographer - some that takes pictures primarily for profit but does not rely on photography income as their primary source of income.

Neither depends on any particular equipment, web presence, or anything like that. I've seen amateurs with $50K in gear and pros working with Canon x0D cameras and non-L glass. I've seen a lot of amateurs that are a lot better than many professionals. To me, professional doesn't necessarily mean good/better, it means that it is their profession. However, for a professional to remain so for a period of time, that usually means that they are producing something that someone finds valuable.

 

[ThurlFan]

It was petty of me, but her son was in very few pictures after that.

Good for you, I say

 

[fitzperry]

My take is slightly different.

I've got a day job, it feeds my kids and me pretty reasonably, I'm comfortably off and that's nice.

I also have a hobby - I shoot stage productions and sell CDs of the pics I've taken to the participants (http://www.stagepics.co.uk)

But I don't want to make it harder for anyone else to feed his kids. So I explicitly state that I do not want an society to "ditch" a pro photographer for me.

At the end of the day, I have to take my clients' word for it. But it makes me sleep more easily at night.

That probably just proves that I am a namby-pamby European liberal

regards,
/alan

PS I don't think any pro photographer would be willing to put in the post processing work that I do for the amount of profit from the job...

I'm probably veering too far off topic, but this brings to mind an article I read yesterday which discussed some research about the effects of youth sports. I really just sort of skimmed it, but I believe one of the primary findings was that people who participated in youth athletics have higher earnings on average than those who didn't. The author also noted that Americans are more likely than "namby pamby European liberals" to link economic success or lack thereof with effort and theorized that Americans, who are also more likely to have been involved in organized sports, developed that attitude on the playing field. Sounds like a bit of rubbish to me--I hardly think the "American work ethic" is derived wholly, or even in large part from sports--more likely the other way around, but I thought it was interesting.

And to answer the original question, I see your concern, but so long as you are not violating a tournament's rules (including those arising out of any agreement with a professional photographer), I think you should simply keep doing what you've been doing.

 

[Evad]

A buddy of mine coaches youth soccer- they do not have a 'hired pro' or any capable parents- and asked me to take some team photos. Since I had never shot sports befors I thought it would be fun. After a few games I got BLASTED by a soccer mom for charging $5 for a 5x7 of which $1 was for processing and $1 went back to the team. I think I made maybe $25 working three different games and tournaments- I doubt it even covered the gas cost. So I say have at it- I can't imagine too many pro's are really making a living at youth sports.

$5 for a 5x7 is a steal. She should not complain. I purchased some shots from the "pros' at my sons hockey games. They cost $20 a pop. Jeff if you want to come up here and for $5 a shot please by all means shoot away. That goes for all you great photographers here on the Dis.

This is a sample of what $20 bucks will get you.

 

[NostalgicDad]

Just today at my son's end of the flag football season party I provided a DVD slideshow to all the parents . Also included on the DVD are the original photos (condensed to 300). I even took the time to Lightscribe the discs with a team image. I did this because I enjoyed doing it and expected nothing in return. I do sell images from other events I shoot but this was just my way to give something back to the team.

The coach and his wife both insisted to the other parents that they pay me and most of them actually gave me $5 each even though I was adamantly refusing. There had been a problem with getting team photos done this season so everyone thought they could simply use this in lieu of trying to get that hammered out. We're talking less than a hundred dollars here but I'll find a way to repay that money. I just don't feel right accepting money from parents on my own team.

But, to stick to the topic in this thread, I believe a parent has every right to do whatever he or she sees fit with regards to taking pictures of their kids or the team in general. These are youth sports we're talking about. If a "pro" photographer has a problem with this, then perhaps they should reconsider what it is they are actually after and move on to bigger and better things. Shoot away David!