Thread: Wanted: Photog for Playboy shoot in Vegas/No Pay

Originally Posted by CompleteHavoc

By no means can I shoot Playboy quality, but that's where the working for free comes in - my unpaid internships thought me more then any photography class ever could. Yes, it was long hours with no pay, but the lesson is worth way more then the money would have been, and sticks with you well after the money is gone.

And were you producing photos that someone was using commercially in this internship or were you just a helping hand on photoshoots?

Big difference in the ethics of it, but either way you should have been paid. I worked for years "interning" for photographers, and learning all the way, except it was called "assisting" and I got paid for my work.

Nothing I shot was used commercially by Playboy, truth be told I was a lot more interested at the time in learning from their IT department then the photography department I was interning in. I just couldn't see myself taking pictures of buildings, little kids and weddings for years until I could make my break.

Working in IT and Graphic Design just seemed like I would get paid a little more steadily, and still make my own hours. I still do photography for my design work, or as a "paid hobby" but I never found a way to make my photography skills as focused on the things I enjoy like you have... I do envy you guys who found a way to make your cash doing photography of Cars and Models for clients - the only way I ever made that "kind of" work was working for myself.

The more work you do for free, the more chance there is of making money from it.

You could view it as practice, if you get paid from your practice in the future then all the better.

Originally Posted by CompleteHavoc

Nothing I shot was used commercially by Playboy, truth be told I was a lot more interested at the time in learning from their IT department then the photography department I was interning in. I just couldn't see myself taking pictures of buildings, little kids and weddings for years until I could make my break.

Working in IT and Graphic Design just seemed like I would get paid a little more steadily, and still make my own hours. I still do photography for my design work, or as a "paid hobby" but I never found a way to make my photography skills as focused on the things I enjoy like you have... I do envy you guys who found a way to make your cash doing photography of Cars and Models for clients - the only way I ever made that "kind of" work was working for myself.

As for models, it is in my experience that models seem to think that not only should YOU pay to shoot them, that the images are then theres, and you shouldnt do anything with them without their permission, and you cant watermark them.

Some models really dont have a clue how life works.

Originally Posted by Rasidel Slika

yes definitely agree, you must spend lots and lots of money if you want to get good photos.

Good one dude. Lol that is like the old skool way, its like how music is too, back in the day you had to have your music produced in a studio with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment to make it sound good. These days with modern technology, anyone can make good sounding music in their bedroom or on the train or wherever. Need to get with the times, buddy.

You are absolutely, 100% correct!!

and, you are completely missing the ART aspect of photography - you can take AMAZING photos with a $5 disposable camera, if you know how to. This is the aspect of photography which money cannot buy.

Originally Posted by Rasidel Slika

and, you are completely missing the ART aspect of photography - you can take AMAZING photos with a $5 disposable camera, if you know how to. This is the aspect of photography which money cannot buy.

Then why pay for it?

why pay for what?

Originally Posted by Shawnny

Then why pay for it?

If you are asking, why pay for the pro camera equipment, a lot of people don't. I have seen great photography with Canon point and shoots and horrendous photography with Canon 1D's. If you are asking Rasidel specifically, or any other pro for that matter, the answer often comes down to mexapixels, autofocus, and sharpness. Clients want and expect high resolution photos with great quality, something the $5 disposables don't offer. A $5 disposable may be able to take great pictures of landscapes or still objects, but it will struggle with high speed objects like sports, or low light subjects like club photography. And lastly, a $5 disposable camera has a $2 disposable lens; something that will never compare to the high quality crystals used in DSLRs.