fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

Submit A Story

Nobody Paints Their Red Soles Purple

by 16 Comments

“I just purchased a beautiful painting. It was in a gallery and I fell in love with it. It cost quite a bit of money, but it was a great investment and will look amazing in my house. Well, that is, after I add my some finishing touches to it with my own acrylic paints. Maybe add some extra flowers, put glitter around the edges, or change the color of the sky, because I spent a lot of money on this beautiful painting and want to change it completely.”

“Look at this incredible Native American pottery. Beautiful, right? It cost thousands of dollars, and I saved up to buy it, but now, it’s mine. I can not wait to get it home and stick my kids’ Play-Doh all over it. Maybe put some start shapes or some long orange Playdough ropes around the top. Possibly shove the Play-Doh through the little plastic Play-Doh machine and make spaghetti strands to drape on the side. I spent so much money on this Native American pot so now I want to make it look different.”

 

“Yeah, the soles of my Christian Louboutin shoes are red. I paid close to $700 for the shoes, and I know the red lacquered sole is the brand’s signature, but I’m thinking I want the soles PURPLE, and thanks to this can of spray paint, I’m going to make that happen.”

Have you ever heard anyone say this?

No, you haven’t, and you’re never gonna hear this. Why? Because people who invest a chunk of change on Art DO NOT WANT IT ALTERED. They bought it BECAUSE of the way it looks.
To change it would ruin it.

I hear a lot of stories about photographers who deliver digital files only (I’m sorry, my eye is twitching just writing that) and then the client takes the file and runs it through some crappy Instagram filter, posts it on social media where the creator sees the abomination of their work and then has to fight the urge to either scream, cry, drink his/herself into a coma, have kittens or all the above.
My friends, there is a very simple reason why this happens: when you price your art, your photography, at rock bottom prices you are not necessarily going to attract clients who truly value good photography enough to invest in it. Does that makes sense?

People who value and invest in photography would never dream of changing it. They bought it BECAUSE of the way it looks.

And when you’re charging $100, $200, $500 for all images on a USB (Sorry, hold on. The eye is twitching again) you run the risk of attracting clients who come to you not because they are in love with your style; they come because of your low low prices. They “just want pictures.” They don’t value your Art; they don’t value your photography…you just happen to be the most affordable. And when that happens, they aren’t going to treat your final product like a fine painting or a beautiful piece of pottery because there’s no value in it to them. They don’t appreciate it. And when that happens, it’s much more likely you will see your beautiful images with some crappy Instagram filter over it. And you will scream, “GET THE VODKA!”

So going forward into 2017 make it a point to take a good long look not just at your work but at your business formula and practices. Make sure you are giving people value. And if the quality is there and the customer service is there, then UP THOSE PRICES, because then you will more than likely attract those people who appreciate what you do.

And isn’t that the point?

About the Author

Missy Mwac is a photographer/eater of bacon/drinker of vodka and a guide through the murky waters of professional photography. You can follow her social media links here: Facebook, Tumblr. This article was also published here and shared with permission.

Related posts:

Dear Groupon Man Can I Just Get The Digital Files? How to Write a Photographer’s Bio…Or How NOT to Ask Missy: How to Respond to the Request for Free Wedding Photography

  • Is this really an issue? Other than wedding photography and stock photography where is this happening?

  • Lukáš Budínský

    Hi, I am little bit confused.
    Did you tried imagine this from the other side? I am a family portrait photographer, but also a client of great photo colleage as father of the family. And I cant imagine, that I dont get the final files.
    Oh no – i dont want to post them on instagram. But imagine, that I want the picture as cover of our annual family book, or inside it as “killer double side”. I dont need one final book from photographer from one shooting. I just need to be free to use my photographs as I want. No filters, no alterations. We are creating photocalendar for our parents and also using professional photographs – should I ask the photographer to do it and send him other 10 photos with instructions? Dont think so.
    I definitely appreciate professional photos as ART and want the same for the ones of mine. But i definitely dont understand this “give final files not to the client”. I wont book this photographer – and trust me, I am not choosing by price.
    Just opinion – what dou you think? Thanks for answer…

  • Arcmor

    You started with expensive items and showed how no one would buy them only to change it. Then you are talking about an USB stick full of pictures for a 100 bucks that someone might transform them to their desire. There is no moral equivalency between the two. There is a reason why the photographer is selling in the wholesale – they are not pieces of art in the first place.

    • Kevin Blackburn

      I see you missed the point its not about moral equivalency these are simple metaphoric examples and if you missed that

      • Arcmor

        I know they were “metaphorical” examples. But they should be based on some reality if you want to compare with your situation with photographs.

  • Your high tech camera equipment is exposing their “ugly” faces, they want to mask it with instagram filters. They don’t value your photography, they evaluate their own appearence. Anyone photographing people nowdays, especially young people, especially females, knows this and it has nothing to do with value or price of photography. It’s the twisted values of todays world. You don’t see that happen with landscapes.

  • Ahmet

    Your eye can twitch, nobody cares. Architects suffer plaster lions on drive ways, designers suffer wrong clothing combination, graphic designers suffer tastles lettering over their work and so on. You sold something, it is not yours anymore. And if I have that much money and I wanted purple soles there would be purple soles. I won’t give a flying f*** about the twitching eye of the designer.
    Your whole rant comes from your state of mind that you are an ARTIST (yeah, full caps) and as that you know it better. (BTW people don’t mess with expensive pieces of art because it ruins the resale value. A family photo has no resale value and in case of a digital file it doesn’t even make sense to talk about it.)

    • Dan Conley

      ^^…future customer……

    • Me, Myself and I

      You sold something, it is not yours anymore.

      Actually, that’s not QUITE true. In some places in the world, there is a flip side to copyright called MORAL RIGHTS. And no this has nothing to do with what is morally correct but rather the rights of the author beyond simple copyright.

      Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.

      There was a case here in Canada where an artist prevented a large shopping center from adding decorations to statues he had sold them. Google: Snow v Eaton Centre Ltd

      Also, when I sell you a print (or files), that is all I sell you, a print: not the rights to the image itself. You can’t then turn around and sell those images on a stock site or start selling prints. You own the file not the copyright to the image itself.

      That being said, Missy would be quite un-happy with me since I do hand out digital files. That’s just the nature of how people consume photos these days … on their tablets, on facebook … but your statements were still false.

      You sold something, it is not yours anymore.

      That’s not how copyright works.

      • Ahmet

        It really depends on what you sell an how you were employed. I do not think that in any country you (as a photographer) could use my family portraits (I commissoined and paid for) on eg. a stock site without my written consent. You are distorting the case in an other way as well, since using a photo in privet in any way is very different from alterring it and use it for commercial activites under the original author’s name. Also there is my right as “visual artist” to use your work, alter it and sell it under my name. The question is if I added enough to say it’s a new piece of art, or not.

        • Me, Myself and I

          It really depends on what you sell an how you were employed.

          Obviously we are talking about photographs here and for how you were employed, unless I am an actual salaried employee or signed away the rights in writing, I retain the rights to those images.

          I do not think that in any country you (as a photographer) could use my family portraits (I commissoined and paid for) on eg. a stock site without my written consent.

          That is true … well unless I flagged them as editorial only but unless you are a public personality that would be pointless but I think you are confusing 2 different aspects of law here … intellectual property (copyright) and personality rights.

          The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one’s identity.

          I can’t use images of you COMMERCIALLY (and even that definition isn’t as clear as you think) niot because you own the rights to the images (cause you don;t) but because you have a “personality right”.

          You are distorting the case in an other way as well, since using a photo in privet in any way is very different from alterring it and use it for commercial activites under the original author’s name.

          No, I’m not distorting anything. You went in with an absolute statement.

          You sold something, it is not yours anymore. And if I have that much money and I wanted purple soles there would be purple soles.

          And personal vs commercial has only a limited bearing on this as well. If you buy a music CD, are you allowed then to make copies for your friends? It;s not commercial after all, you aren’t selling it to them right?

          Also there is my right as “visual artist” to use your work, alter it and sell it under my name.

          Not really … this is from the US copyright office.

          Right to Prepare Derivative Works

          Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaption of
          a work may constitute copyright infringement.

          So technically, you need my permission to make your derivetive … I know, you are going to refrence Richard Prince … I have no idea how that asshat gets away with what he does.

          There are some exceptions under fair use but those have a very specific definition.

          • Ahmet

            Of course there is a difference between copyright and personality rights but since we are talking about a photo of the commissioner of the photo you can’t separate the two. The result is that whatever rights you withhold you can’t use the photo without my approval. So what is the point of the whole legal bla-bla about the fineries of copyrights.
            I wasn’t even thinking about Richard Prince, coz I agree with you on that point. :) I thought about Dali’s Mona Lisa version. No copyrights there so did not mention. But you can think about photos of buildings, bridges, statues, etc. Those are kind of infringement if you think about it…

            Also I think we live in very different legal systems so the whole exercise is quite pointless.

            Although I’d like to mention that noone ever asked for a model release of a 3rd world person’s portrait… Equal rights.

          • Me, Myself and I

            They do sepending on the ontended use. For non commercial use or editorial use there is no requierment for a model release.

            Again, that varies a little from country to country.

            And yes, you can seperate copyright and personality rights … it depends on the intended use of the image.

          • Ahmet

            Just an example: In Europe all faces are blured out on TV even if they appear on the street in the background.
            So yes, you can separate the copyright and personality rights but in this specipic case there is no point in fighting for your copyright since the personality right is there as well.
            Also I still don’t get the original problem. Yeah, you made something “beautiful” and they altered it to their standard of “beautiful”. Pimp my ride…

  • This is great. I realize that some people don’t appreciate photography as art, but not everyone appreciates fine designer handbags (like me) either. If you ARE a photographer, you hopefully think your family portraits are art—if you don’t, then keep passing out USBs and CDs. If you do, the author’s point here is that you just don’t give people your files to do whatever they please and call it a job. Even commercial photographers (given the choice) retain rights to their images, shot to the specifications of their clients, and place restrictions on what can and cannot be done with their images when used. When you’re creating portraits, you gotta give people more than just unedited digital files. People are going to want something in print…in which case YOU, the photographer and artist, are the best person to have that done so that the prints look the way YOU intended and not however Walmart or Costco’s autocorrect software decided to make them.

  • Kevin Blackburn

    I like this it is an interesting way to make a point that is well made time and again on countless sites but some how this is a bit different and stands out to me thanks for sharing.

Recent Posts