In my own case, I’m in the process of turning pro as a photographer. I’m currently devoting my time to building my digital skills (spent many years in the film world) and my portfolio. I’m also studying the business of photography.

As part of my portfolio-building effort, I have been volunteering as a photographer for various non-profit organizations. While some of the work has been quite worthwhile (in terms of building my skills and making contacts), I’ve also found that working for free can lead to exploitation.

So, I’ve decided to draw the line on what organizations I do work for and under what terms. For one thing, I’ve become very upfront about what I expect from the organizations in return for donating my photographic services.

I’m also avoiding the trap of photographing for free for this group, then being expected to do the same thing for five others. (Here is where the word “no” comes in handy.)

My version of the same concept is that I do a lot of activities for free but it’s mainly in the educational field. Like I describe in details how did I made the picture, comment other peoples blogs with intention to help, running a Festival of Photography, etc. I do give some images for free, but that’s almost exclusively for educational purposes.

There are also some huge advantages. If you give images for free, you’re ruin the competition and if you’re established enough to get income on the other doors, then you kill two flies in one stroke. For example a professional can give away his images and get extra income by selling books, workshops and as in Leslie’s case selling her advices. (By the way I would pay immediately for your advice, but I don’t know if things would work also on this side of the planet)

If you’re unestablished photographers, you probably don’t have children to feed and mortgage, so you could be more aggressive. If you’re good enough you’ll be a strong competition. Like Ciril Jazbec. He is only 20 years old and although he don’t give away images for free, I can bet he’s much much cheaper then the established farts.
http://www.ciriljazbec.com/
http://blog.ciriljazbec.com/

Anyhow great concept and I’ll apply it in my way.
Borut

Why?

Because the industry already suffers so much from people who

a. have no idea and are too happy (and stupid) to just give away imagery without ever realising that their photos have value to that person they are giving them to

b. are too happy to just get their photo published for free in the vain ‘hope’ that the nice magazine will one day pay them

c. the list goes on.

In my mind, if the photography industry was healthy in terms of people getting copyright and understanding the value of what they produce, then yeah, sure, I would be more in favour of building a fan base by providing freebies.

Until that time - and it won’t EVER change - I think building a fan base by dishing out the free stuff is just another nail in the coffin.

Buy hey, that’s just my opinion. People will do what works for them, and that is all that matters.

I’m half joking of course but I’m just trying to illustrate that Free or Loss Leaders have been effective marketing tools most likely originating in the stone age. Naturally photographers are sensitive because ours is nearly always a buyers market. Supply and demand is so out of whack and value often so low that Free hits a little too close to home, if you catch my meaning.

While I’m not sure I agree completely with APE, I do maintain that under the right circumstances, a photographer aggressively climbing the ladder can benefit from giving it away but only if their work is strong enough, their service unique enough or their personality electric enough so that free can lead to profit.