Your photos get around don't they?

Surely a direct donation from the publisher will have a similar benefit and it takes me out of the loop.

From the HMRC page on Gift Aid:-

"How Gift Aid works

The Gift Aid scheme is for gifts of money by individuals who pay UK tax. Gift Aid donations are regarded as having basic rate tax deducted by the donor. Charities or CASCs take your donation - which is money you've already paid tax on - and reclaim the basic rate tax from HMRC. on its 'gross' equivalent - the amount before basic rate tax was deducted."

I have added the italics.......so it looks like the publisher - being a business and not an individual - can't Gift Aid.

Gift Aid turns a £10 donation into £12.50 by the time the charity claims. Not a bad return!

Thanks Simon. You have enlightened me... :-)

Surely a direct donation from the publisher will have a similar benefit and it takes me out of the loop.

Businesses can make charitable donations too, not sure of the mechanism or tax implications but it would be easy enough to find out by ringing the Revenue helpline.

Apologies .......but swinging the topic another way.....

Re: the cost of one good quality underwater photograph...........

Has anyone ever sat down with one of their favourite images and estimate how much it actually cost to take it? I'd say...try it!

As an exercise..I did a wee guesstimate on an image I saw recently..from an amateur's perspective of course.......taken by our beloved Alex Mustard.....it was a picture of a clown fish on an anemone in the red sea.

I asked myself...if I wanted to take that same picture in the morning...how much would I need to spend...with the same kit that Alex used??

A rough guestimate for the same kit.......ie. strobes, camera, lens, housing........about 8000 sterling.

Then get to the Red Sea.... on a good liveaboard....say about 1000 sterling max......

But I cannot forget all the hours spent underwater, and the cash needed to do this......the learning...the training......the mistakes..... the triumphs....more thousands.........

Jeez....this underwater photography is a potentially expensive lark period....and an awful lot of cash goes into getting you....the photographer.... into a position to trigger that shutter.......

So to round it all off with regards what has been said already..... you get contacted by commercial publications/editiors who expect to use your images for free....with the promise of a credit......and all rights to them??

Labour of love indeed....:-)

Apologies .......but swinging the topic another way.....

Re: the cost of one good quality underwater photograph...........

............................

 

So to round it all off with regards what has been said already..... you get contacted by commercial publications/editiors who expect to use your images for free....with the promise of a credit......and all rights to them??

 

Labour of love indeed....:-)

The offer of a credit in exchange for payment always makes me laugh. Here in the UK, if you assert your moral rights (I do) publishers are legally bound to credit the creator. Those wanting something for nothing seem to think they are doing you a favour by complying with the law.

Its a simple matter of education and refusal with respect to free use, all rights and attribution that will alter publishers attitudes. I am under no illusion that a one-man stance is unlikely to have a significant impact........but I do recognise I'm not alone....

You are right Damo - massive investment. Thankfully copyright exists for 70 years after death of the creator......as long as the "all rights" refusal is given.

As an exercise..I did a wee guesstimate on an image I saw recently..from an amateur's perspective of course.......taken by our beloved Alex Mustard.....it was a picture of a clown fish on an anemone in the red sea.

 

I asked myself...if I wanted to take that same picture in the morning...how much would I need to spend...with the same kit that Alex used??

A rough guestimate for the same kit.......ie. strobes, camera, lens, housing........about 8000 sterling.

Then get to the Red Sea.... on a good liveaboard....say about 1000 sterling max......

But I cannot forget all the hours spent underwater, and the cash needed to do this......the learning...the training......the mistakes..... the triumphs....more thousands.........

Jeez....this underwater photography is a potentially expensive lark period....and an awful lot of cash goes into getting you....the photographer.... into a position to trigger that shutter.......

I am guessing this is the photo:

It is certainly my favourite Red Sea image.

From an amateur/hobbyist perspective I think your numbers are correct, Damo. But doing underwater photography for a living means controlling this expenditure. No business model would work in this game if you paid out for all photo ops. I have to operate in a way that gives me the chance to shoot, without the expenditure. Which usually means going where people want me to go, rather than choosing where I want to go.

I think revealing a little of what this photo did cost, gives quite large insights in how I find I must operate to make ends meet.

It was taken on my November 2008 Red Sea workshop. The main aim of that trip was teaching, so it cost me nothing to go and I was paid well for going there for the week. Of course, this means that my own shots were a low priority, and I think anyone who has been on one of my workshops would say that I work very hard for the group (on talks, giving advice on the conditions/site/opportunities and on reviewing images). So it is not an easy way to operate, but it does mean I was well into profit for this trip before I took this picture.

I also used this trip to review the new Nikon D700 in a Subal housing. Both of which I had been lent. So again no cost. The lens was a 16mm fisheye, which I had owned since film days, and Kenko 1.5 TC. Strobes were Subtrononic Alphas, one owned from film days, one bought secondhand. So cost per dive/photo/successful photo on these items is now very low. The trip also allowed me to complete the review of this system, although it ended up costing me - because a month later I bought one!!

I think all this is worth mentioning because it gives an insight into the difference between doing this for a living and for fun. uUnderwater photography for a living is all about reducing overheads. The photo you chose randomly was taken on a trip I was paid to go on, with a borrowed camera. Sure I would have rather been in the Galapagos with a D3x, but to make the finances work I don't always get to go where I want.

The hard part is not taking the good pictures or selling them. The difficulty is finding the different ways of funding time in the field to take them, while ensure you remain in profit. It is a challenge of being in the blue, while staying in the black! :-)

------

So to get back on topic, I think you have to decide if UW photo is a hobby, which you enjoy spending you money to do and when pictures make money you treat the extra income as a treat! Or whether you are operating from a business perspective. For most people it makes more sense to use their talents to earn money in a proper job, for which they are well paid, and then spend this money enjoying their hobby. I enjoy spending my money on my (dry) hobbies!

Alex

That's the one Alex!!! (Love this image very much...it's a bloody cracker!!)

I fully accept the big differences in perspectives/cost between the pro and the amateur- thats why I 'covered my butt' when I looked at this from a (very) amateur's perspective.

Thanks so much for taking the time to give the insight....much food for thought indeed.

Dam

ps. Incidentally, I did the sums in my head when I found your pic in 'Outdoor Photography', my fave over water photography magazine. I just pick up this magazine and it brings a smile to my face, and inspiration to my head...........I'm still learning to translate this inspiration into reality....and when I do...........I'll be charging 500 euro a print..... (with tongue very much wedged in cheek)

Echoing what Alex has said, there are lots of things we spend money on that give us no profit. Cars are a big example. Most of us would be better off using taxis!

That said, I find it sad that I can be paid a reasonable fee to write something but fees to reproduce my pictures are now minimal. That is because the world is awash with good underwater pics. However, I can write a good piece about, say, Cocos Keeling (which I have never been to) simply by doing research that does not need me to leave my desk. To get the pictures involves a lot of time and money and risk - more fool us!

.............................ntioning because it gives an insight into the difference between doing this for a living and for fun. uUnderwater photography for a living is all about reducing overheads. The photo you chose randomly was taken on a trip I was paid to go on, with a borrowed camera. Sure I would have rather been in the Galapagos with a D3x, but to make the finances work I don't always get to go where I want.

 

The hard part is not taking the good pictures or selling them. The difficulty is finding the different ways of funding time in the field to take them, while ensure you remain in profit. It is a challenge of being in the blue, while staying in the black! :-)

 

------

 

So to get back on topic, I think you have to decide if UW photo is a hobby, which you enjoy spending you money to do and when pictures make money you treat the extra income as a treat! Or whether you are operating from a business perspective. For most people it makes more sense to use their talents to earn money in a proper job, for which they are well paid, and then spend this money enjoying their hobby. I enjoy spending my money on my (dry) hobbies!

 

Alex

Turnover, profit and loss and Earnings Before Interest & Tax. Rarely do these terms apply to photography, but Alex et al is right, the bottom line is critical and remaining in profit is a priority. Profit is the only thing that allows any business to keep doing what it wants/needs to do. Without profit.......well we have all seen the effects of over extending the loans and once proud banks have vanished. Same with photographers. No one is immune to the bottom line, not even individuals.

Time is the most valuable asset anyone has. How to spend it is the absolute decision we all make and no one ever gets more than 24 hours per day, same as everyone else. Where to go? When to go? What to point the camera at? These run through my mind far more often than actually holding a camera and looking through the viewfinder. How to spend the 24 hours we have is the hardest decision to make. Get it right and bingo. Get it wrong and its a red number on the balance sheet.