race photos (Read 1789 times)

    Interesting discussion.  I appreciate zoom-zoom’s comments about undervaluing the service of photographers and am sensitive to the issues of copyright.  However, I’m with most folks posting here:

    • paying to buy a print is so twentieth-century; time to update the business model to the digital age.
    • for most people this isn’t art; it’s a little souvenir.  Given the ability of the amateur to snap a pretty darn good photo with a modestly-priced camera, some of the prices (e.g. $39-$59 for a single “professional” photo) are—IMHO—nuts.
    • As usual, the big actors BR, MP, are the ones who are making most of the money; individual photographers, not so much.  (Who do you think is making most of the money from your shoes?  Not the workers making the shoes.)

    On the big races, I think it makes a lot of sense to roll the cost of photography into the overall registration fee and make pre-paid digital-only photos available to all.  Treating it like the T-shirt, would simplify the whole process…no order-taking, mailings, endless e-mails harassing runners to buy pictures for a race they ran 6 months ago, etc.

     

    On the local races, I like the DIY runner ethic.  Whenever feasible, running should be a fun community event not a commercial career path.  It makes sense to cultivate volunteers in all aspects, including photography which is now more and more accessible to competent amateurs.  Everything shouldn’t be about making a buck.


    Prince of Fatness

      This is surprising. 

       

       

      What can I say, you brought the best out of me.  But yeah, that's another reason for "no".

      Semi-retired.


      Prince of Fatness

        On the big races, I think it makes a lot of sense to roll the cost of photography into the overall registration fee and make pre-paid digital-only photos available to all.  Treating it like the T-shirt, would simplify the whole process…no order-taking, mailings, endless e-mails harassing runners to buy pictures for a race they ran 6 months ago, etc.

         

        The problem with this is that the bigger the race, the less likely it is that you will get a good shot of yourself due to all of the other runners around you.

        Semi-retired.


        HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

          The problem with this is that the bigger the race, the less likely it is that you will get a good shot of yourself due to all of the other runners around you.

           

          Contrariwise, I think there is a much better chance of getting a good shot of you at a big race. I mean, as long as you run out in front.

          It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

            I spoke with the photographer at the half marathon in Dallas last weekend.  He said they sell 3 percent of the photos taken on course of people actually running.  It is simply hard to get a good photo of people smiling and looking good while actually running.  They, however, sell 15 percent of the photos of people taken after the finish when they are holding their medal or are with their running mate.  The photos standing in front of the race backdrop sell the most.

            ___________

            Chris

              I think the biggest issue is that the cost per quality of a POS or consumer Rebel taken by friend/family is SO much lower than the cost per quality of a professional photo.  Not many are willing to make the jump, especially considering they don't have the need, or sometimes the discretionary funds.  It's a huge price jump for a marginal increase in quality

               

              A lot of markets are realizing that the mass consumer public will frivolously spend $1-2 on just about anything if it has "enough" quality, but won't spend more for extra quality.

               

              I would think a photographer could do fairly well for themselves selling mid-resolution digitals of on-course running shots for $1-2, then charge $5-10 for post-race award photos and other staged pictures, plus offer full-res digitals and corrected prints for connoisseurs.

               

              Personally though, many of you are lucky with the quality of the photos offered to you at any price.  Most photos (the ones I've seen) are typically amateurs that spend more on their equipment than their skill requires.  Heck, my college graduation photos are dark and blurry, nearly worthless compared to the outside shots my wife took.

                Ah, but then you need to have a few photographers so that everybody gets his picture taken.  I make a lot of photographs, but inevitably I miss many people.  

                 

                Yea, I've noticed. Be quicker! Wink

                Ricky

                —our ability to perform up to our physiological potential in a race is determined by whether or not we truly psychologically believe that what we are attempting is realistic. Anton Krupicka


                  I would think a photographer could do fairly well for themselves selling mid-resolution digitals of on-course running shots for $1-2, then charge $5-10 for post-race award photos and other staged pictures, plus offer full-res digitals and corrected prints for connoisseurs.

                   

                  I like this post, but I've yet to see any post-race photos, ad I'd prefer one-sometimes.

                  Ricky

                  —our ability to perform up to our physiological potential in a race is determined by whether or not we truly psychologically believe that what we are attempting is realistic. Anton Krupicka

                    I am a new runner, just ran a couple of races, I have looked at the photos but thought they where too expensive for what was really an ugly snapshot. I would have paid for a reasonable priced digital copy, to use on Facebook etc but it is not worth $15.00 for something for my friends to giggle at. I have though bought a couple of photos of my dogs competing in Agility trials, first off they are much cuter than me, and secondally there are not photographers at every trial, and getting a great picture of a dog moving at high speed requires a great sense of timing, one that my husband has not managed but a friend can manage a quick snapshot of me on a race course. But even there I would have preferred a reasonable priced digital copy for use on Facebook, phone background etc. I hate clutter and have no need to have a bunch of photos lying around. I fully appreciate photographers work, but there is a huge difference between shooting a wedding and a snapshot for a race picture, I make wedding cakes so know lots of people in that line of work. I also understand why a couple just want the digitals as that is much more our current life style. I have opened my wedding album maybe four or five times and have not been near it in over ten years. A wedding photographer friend provides a dvd but not of every image shot, she eddits and touches up all the photos the couple get, so she is still controling the final product. But back to the OP I do not think it is right to use the proof image for anything, maybe if you have it in a file on your computer to glance at, it walks a very narrow line, but to repost etc not right.


                    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                      Well, to get just a tiny bit technical, when they put in on a web page and implicitly invite you to view it, they're inviting you to download it to a file on your computer -- that is what happens when you view it, by definition.  So they want you to download a file copy -- but of course, they only want you to view that file (downloaded to your computer) whilst you're looking at their advertising.  It is just one of the ways that digital is different from hardcopy.

                       

                      So things can get fuzzy if you start looking at details, I think -- is it breaking copyright to hold your hand over the advertising portions of the web page? Is it breaking copyright if your browser is unable to render their advertising (perhaps it is in some crappy technology such as Flash)? Is it breaking copyright if your security software blocks their advertising (perhaps it is in some crappy & dangerous technology such as Flash). Is it breaking copyright when your backup software automatically makes a backup of the downloaded file? Should you be sued for copyright infringement by some photographer trying to prevent you from being allowed to use backup software on your own computer?

                       

                      The details reveal some problems with digital technology and "rights management", I think.

                      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                        May as well let the secret out:

                         

                        Anybody who runs Viaduct gets free downloads of full-resolution race photos.

                         

                        Whether it's the agony of victory or the thrill of defeat, all photos are kept available for that special moment when you're finally ready to relive the experience.

                          But we're not talking about any of those inadvertent floats in the parade of horribles.  We're talking about someone affirmatively downloading an image -- without authorization -- and then using that image in ways that the author intended an authorized copy be used.

                           

                          For nearly every other good, we never think, I really want this thing, but it costs too much -- I'll just take it without paying.  People who download music without paying weren't shoplifting CD's ten years ago.  Does the downloading act itself somehow make things different?  Or is it that people would've stolen stuff but were worried about getting caught, and that's not a fear with downloading in the privacy of your own home?

                          “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                          Elly.


                            Well, to get just a tiny bit technical, when they put in on a web page and implicitly invite you to view it, they're inviting you to download it to a file on your computer -- that is what happens when you view it, by definition.  So they want you to download a file copy -- but of course, they only want you to view that file (downloaded to your computer) whilst you're looking at their advertising.  It is just one of the ways that digital is different from hardcopy.

                             

                            So things can get fuzzy if you start looking at details, I think -- is it breaking copyright to hold your hand over the advertising portions of the web page? Is it breaking copyright if your browser is unable to render their advertising (perhaps it is in some crappy technology such as Flash)? Is it breaking copyright if your security software blocks their advertising (perhaps it is in some crappy & dangerous technology such as Flash). Is it breaking copyright when your backup software automatically makes a backup of the downloaded file? Should you be sued for copyright infringement by some photographer trying to prevent you from being allowed to use backup software on your own computer?

                             

                            The details reveal some problems with digital technology and "rights management", I think.

                             

                            Oh, give me a break....... If said web page implicitly has a copyright all over it, that means it is not available for download.  You can view it, but not download it.  Period. 

                            http://www.ellyfosterphotography.com/

                              But we're not talking about any of those inadvertent floats in the parade of horribles.  We're talking about someone affirmatively downloading an image -- without authorization -- and then using that image in ways that the author intended an authorized copy be used.

                               

                              For nearly every other good, we never think, I really want this thing, but it costs too much -- I'll just take it without paying.  People who download music without paying weren't shoplifting CD's ten years ago.  Does the downloading act itself somehow make things different?  Or is it that people would've stolen stuff but were worried about getting caught, and that's not a fear with downloading in the privacy of your own home?

                               

                              I think there's a sort of primal understanding of ownership with things that are physical.  Think of a little kid grabbing a toy from another kid.  When it's not physical, and indeed, we aren't depriving the other individual of the item, but just taking a copy of it, it's harder to feel that it is stealing.

                              Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.


                              Needs more cowbell!

                                For nearly every other good, we never think, I really want this thing, but it costs too much -- I'll just take it without paying.  People who download music without paying weren't shoplifting CD's ten years ago.  Does the downloading act itself somehow make things different?  Or is it that people would've stolen stuff but were worried about getting caught, and that's not a fear with downloading in the privacy of your own home?

                                 

                                I've wondered about this.  What is it about a digitized product that makes people forget their manners and morals?  Or is it that they don't fear getting caught.  If a store owner left his/her shop doors unlocked and turned off security cameras would people think it OK to loot, with knowledge that they wouldn't be caught?  Do people only do what's right when they fear that doing otherwise will get them into trouble...?

                                I shoot pretty things! ~

                                '14 Goals:

                                • 6 duathlons (1 Olympic distance)

                                • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)