10 ms·

I might get downvoted for that, I still gonna say it: That might be due to the demand-supply situation in photography. They probably will find photographers do

I might get downvoted for that, I still gonna say it: That might be due to the demand-supply situation in photography. They probably will find photographers doing this for the promotion effect described in the email.

Ensorceled 5y ago
Right but abusive and predatory behaviour is STILL abusive and predatory in an oversupply situation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jf22 5y ago
  The promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn.
  - pionar 5y ago
    Why not both then?
  - xpe 5y ago
    Yes and Netflix (or the organization making the film) can afford to pay more.
  - burnished 5y ago
    If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Whats the value of 'promotion' at that point?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Couples who want that photographer they saw on TV.
      - mhdhn 5y ago
        ^ Hello, answer here folks.
      - therouwboat 5y ago
        Is photographer visible in the show? Do they know who she is and how to find her?
      - burnished 5y ago
        Aren't those the people already offering to pay in 'exposure' or 'experience'? I have strong doubt that taking no money from Netflix will help you extract payment from other people.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Normal people getting married would pay a premium for someone who appeared on tv. Paying netflix would be a smart business opportunity.
      - jsdwarf 5y ago
        Your photos might appear on this Netflix show, which doesn't mean that you/your brand will do so. Or it might appear in the closing credits that are usually skipped.
        JohnWhigham 5y ago
        Then you add it to your own website/socials that you were in a Netflix show.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    How are they worth anything when this sets the standard that the work is worth $0? If anything this moves the needle down on what you can earn later.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      The Super Bowl doesn't pay the halftime performer. How are they worth anything?
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        So who are the nobodies who had their breakout because of the Super Bowl?
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        When dozens of celebrities offer to work for free, they won't pick a nobody. So what are you trying to prove? Do you honestly think it wouldn't skyrocket a new performer's career?
        emodendroket 5y ago
        I think it sounds like an example that doesn't prove what you aim to convince me of.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        The goal was to disprove "this sets the standard that work is worth $0". And celebrities using it in the middle of successful performance careers seems to disprove that idea just fine. You're the one that brought up breakouts, but the part you're demanding proof of is something that's obvious. No, I don't have proof that a nobody performing in the super bowl would have a huge spike in popularity. But I think you're being ridiculous if you think that wouldn't happen. If you want to find a flaw in an argument, demand proof of something that isn't obvious.
  - amelius 5y ago
    > The promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn. So now you can put this on your resume: I did this job for Netflix. And by the way, they didn't pay me a dime.
  - slaymaker1907 5y ago
    The better question is why a company with as much cash as Netflix can't afford to pay their photographers.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      And not even some new project done on shoe-string budget. But already known and popular one. Kinda makes you wonder of other aspects of their material. They must have some people to do some photo-shoots and some post-production. So why not use those? Or how are they treated?
    - JackFr 5y ago
      As stated in the article, it’s a production company. Netflix buys the product, has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of actually making the show.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    This is one of those things often asserted but rarely proven.
    - Aunche 5y ago
      Brands often pay hundreds of thousands on product placement. I'm not sure that's going to help a photographer though. Coke product placement may motivate me to buy a coke, but it's not like I'm going to hire a wedding photographer 1000 miles away.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Yes, a big company have whole divisions devoted to advertising. But for a business operated by one person it's not really equivalent to talk about doing a full week of work for free, especially one that doesn't prominently display you or your name. Beyond the issue you already mentioned that this is a mostly local business.
    - jf22 5y ago
      You don't know of any person in a service trade that did promo work to build their portfolio? I know auto mechanics, actors, hair people, nail people, home inspectors, photographers, and cooks who have done free work for free promotions. Some people hate on the concept but it's how people get their start in an industry.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        If you think the idea that people will stop valuing things they can get for free and refuse to pay for them is far fetched, I encourage you to see how your hometown newspaper is doing.
        jf22 5y ago
        Your reply is odd. You wanted "proof" work-for-promotions happen and I just wanted to point out this happens in several trades. Anyway, I don't disagree with your comment at all. Certain trades are undervalued because it takes portfolio building or practice in a professional setting to get started. You seemed to be unaware that this happens but now it seems you do?
- tpmx 5y ago
  Please expand on why you think so. Edit: Any why this is the case, in this situation. Please explain? (I'm not from the US - I may be missing something.)
  - illumanaughty 5y ago
    Because exploiting people is wrong.
    - itake 5y ago
      Can you elaborate how this is exploiting? I am a SWE engineer with photography as a hobby. If a tv show contacted me to do a wedding shoot, I'd be excited for the coverage and I wouldn't feel exploited since doing shoots is fun for me. I could see how there are parallels to the "background actor" industry where, by law, you have to pay all of the talent on screen, even if its a nominal amount and the actor would of worked for free. But that doesn't the case here?
      - pavel_lishin 5y ago
        I hope you can see the difference between doing something for free when it's your hobby, vs. doing something for free when it's your career. If a TV show contacted you do create a web app, would you do that work for free? Would you give up other opportunities to get paid to do so?
        tpmx 5y ago
        > If a TV show contacted you do create a web app, would you do that work for free? Would you give up other opportunities to get paid to do so? So, say no? (I've done that a couple of times in similar situations.)
        itake 5y ago
        > would you do that work for free? No, because it is not fulfilling. I do use my career skills to teach under privileged students how to program for free.
- kevinskii 5y ago
  One time someone asked me for a favor. I thought it was unreasonable so I declined. I didn't realize this sort of thing was "abusive and predatory." I feel so victimized now.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    Unless your neighbor is a gigantic corporate entity and the favor they asked was for you to spend a week dispensing your acquired skills with which you normally achieve your livelihood, then this seems like a totally unreasonable comparison.
  - xpe 5y ago
    > One time someone asked me for a favor. I thought it was unreasonable so I declined. I didn't realize this sort of thing was "abusive and predatory." I feel so victimized now. This is uninteresting from my POV and against the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Please help keep HN interesting. Thanks.
    - kevinskii 5y ago
      You're right, I should have left off the last sentence. But words mean things. Let's save the description "abusive and predatory" for things that are, well, abusive and predatory. A voluntary invitation to collaborate does not meet that standard, regardless of its reasonableness.
      - xpe 5y ago
        Perhaps, at the individual level, you can claim that 'voluntary' can never mean abusive. But this would be too simplistic. Many 'voluntary' relationships are abusive. Think about the system implications and dynamics over time here. There are power imbalances and changing expectations. People rarely have the unfettered freedom implicit in your claim. And, if you think beyond the individual level -- at the society level, one's analysis must go much deeper.
- gregmac 5y ago
  It's clear asking a professional to do this and not being up front about paying $0 is unprofessional and a disrespectful waste of time, but I'm not convinced it's actually predatory or abusive. If someone thinks they'll get more than $their_cost in promotion value, they'll do it. If not, they won't. If no one does, the production company is going to waste a lot of time and burn their reputation trying to avoid what's probably a relatively small expense compared to the budget of their show. It would be even worse if someone wrote an article about it.. oops.
  - FabianCC 5y ago
    This. I see the biggest problem with the email conversation that the person asking was not up front with the 0$ payout in the very first paragraph of the email.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  That's why I always pay the highest historical price for everything, regardless of changing market conditions. Fairness /s
- young_unixer 5y ago
  They can just say "no". Problem solved. No abuse, no predation, everyone just goes on with their lives. And if someone wants to say "yes", who are we to tell them what to do with their own time?
  - hinkley 5y ago
    Predation is the act, not the outcome. If everyone says 'no', you're just an unsuccessful predator.
happytoexplain 5y ago
This is less about "can" and more about "should". It's bad for everybody when professionals work "for publicity" or are encouraged to do so, despite the relative innocence of the professional who chooses to do so. For the least subtle take on this possible, see: https://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE https://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE
- jedberg 5y ago
  The amusing irony of that video is that he mostly likely asked to get paid for that interview and now it's on YouTube for free, giving him exposure. :)
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    True, though I wouldn't be surprised if he contacted somebody about this video at some point. Either way, it is the bittersweet truth that Ellison no longer has need for publicity nor payment.
- devit 5y ago
  It's bad for the other photographers, but good for those looking to acquire photography services.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  > It's bad for everybody when professionals work "for publicity" or are encouraged to do so It's important that we not allow our moral judgments to interfere with the facts. This is obviously false.
  - hluska 5y ago
    No, it's really not. Community minded artists refuse to discount their work because discounting their work cuts out the market for young up and coming artists. Creative communities have been making these decisions for longer than I have even owned a computer.
  - Veen 5y ago
prtkgpt 5y ago
Coming soon - "Slaves of Netflix"
jedberg 5y ago
They might get a few in fact. Probably a bunch of desperate wedding photographers after the pandemic needing to kickstart their business again. The question is, will they get multiple people on the shoot for free, and will that get them better pictures than one paid pro? Can you imagine doing the work for free only to find out you're competing with other photographers on the same shoot to get the best shots that they will want to publish so you can get your "exposure payment".
CoastalCoder 5y ago
My wife has done professional wedding photography, and each gig is definitely a lot of work. Especially the post-event editing. But high-end weddings can be very lucrative. If a wedding photographer is (a) ready to perform this level of work, and (b) can afford to do 5 unpaid gigs, and (c) aspires to break into high-end work, I can see this making business sense.
- LanceH 5y ago
  I was thinking along the same lines. There is a big difference in exposure between a high profile Netflix show and the typical request from an Instagram influencer.
mc32 5y ago
Of course. Photography is one of the lowest paid professions so of course you’ll have people tripping over themselves over the opportunity. Question is should Netflix who are flush with cash be a participant to this Gladiatorial Theater? This is kind of grotesque coming from a company with very deep pockets.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  As the article mentions, this is not Netflix. It's a third-party production company that is producing content for Netflix. It's extremely likely and almost guaranteed that Netflix has no idea they've been asking photographers to work for free.
  - erehweb 5y ago
    Netflix can set the terms and conditions of how their third-party production company works - e.g. requiring that everyone involved gets paid a wage.
BeetleB 5y ago
> They probably will find photographers doing this for the promotion effect described in the email. Almost no couple will care - unless what they produce for Love is Blind is extremely out of the ordinary - but then they won't be able to afford it. There's a very good chance the photographers will get no new business because of this.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  As seen on Netflix's Love is Blind plus the press interviews is a great deal. The question is how much would you pay for this opportunity? This buys you an instant reputation.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    I'm not convinced. Wedding photography is quite expensive, so people will think quite a bit on who to get and what they're getting out of it. Pretty much everyone I know will not want to pay extra for someone "with a reputation" unless they can demonstrate that they'll do something better than the average wedding photographer. I'm willing to bet whoever is on this show will not really be better. Of course, there are always rich folks for whom money is not an issue, and they won't spend any time thinking about it and will happily pay whatever for the guy who was on that show.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Looking from my own experience so many photographers are available it is hard to determine who may or may not be credible. Having a tv show connection provides that extra confidence that the photos will turn out well. It is one of those moments you can't do over. But if the portfolio wasn't as high quality as others the tv connection wouldn't matter. I would pay a little more to reduce risk. And the biggest draw is brand. I might not have heard of you if not for your connection to the show. This gives you free worldwide branding. You could setup an online store and sell products or sell advice as a side business.
cyberscientist 5y ago
That would have been fine had they asked a young inexperienced photographer with cheaper and less gear. But they asked an established photographer.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Right, that means only wealthy photographers (from family, etc.) can do this. This is where the injustice comes from when ‘unpaid internships’ equals we only want rich kids to work for us. It’s how the situation propagates through time.
- differentView 5y ago
  How does it benefit an organization to have rich kids working for them for free?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    The organization may not care, but for them it is free.
    - differentView 5y ago
      So what's the problem exactly? The rich kids who don't need the money get exploited for free labor, and?
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        They still get valuable experience that pays off in the future through networking, experience, etc. It starts the snowball of success.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Ekaros 5y ago
I wonder what level promotion they offer? The logo in 72pt visible for whole time when work is shown? Watermarks allowed to be shown at all times? Maybe a 15 minutes of free advertising time?
Netcob 5y ago
Yes, maybe the lucky photographer will be noticed by another large company that is also looking for people who are willing to work for "exposure".
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  or dozens of people who watched the show and said "I want photos just like that AND we can hire the same photographer!"
cerved 5y ago
I'd say it's more related to the freelance nature of the job. Also it's a lot more common in industries with high supply combined with relatively "well off" young professionals that do it for "fun" and "exposure" ie creative industries
ryanackley 5y ago
The promotion effect seems like a fair trade IMO. I was a software freelancer at one point. I would've traded 5 days of work for getting my business (and face) in front of 30 million people.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  That's essentially what professional develoeprs who maintain popular open source projects are doing.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  Huge difference between the two. You have the opportunity to write SW that all those 30 million people can buy. A wedding photographer in Seattle doesn't really care if someone in Houston sees her work. Also it's not comparable to missing 5 days of work. There's more work involved and it'll take longer than 5 days. It's not like they do 5 shoots every week.
meowzero 5y ago
I almost transitioned into photography as my career. In fashion photography (and probably other genres), the editorial spreads in your fashion magazines, (Vogue, Harper's, etc) aren't paid much. They are for promotion. They do pay though. They are also selective on who they choose to photograph a specific story. Even though that gig is way below most professional fashion photographer's day rate, most pros will do anything to get that chance. You also get to work with world class peers like hair, makeup artists, models, stylists, etc. So it's a great deal for everyone. In Netflix's case, it feels more like exploitation. They aren't paying. And even though they're "Netflix" they don't have that clout like Vogue or Harpers to have top wedding photographers to get at that chance. Also, they have to shoot 5 weddings! 1 wedding is a lot of work and stress, but to do 5 for free is a lot to ask a professional photographer. It's like asking a software engineer to build 5 different applications for free for a chance to pad their resume. But this type of stuff is pretty common in the industry, although frowned upon by Photographers. A lot of celebrities, brands, agencies, etc. will try to get free shots from photographers all the time. And they will usually find some desperate person who will take the chance to do it. I've done it, and I had friends who did it. I'm sure Netflix will find someone to do it as well.

Ensorceled 5y ago

Right but abusive and predatory behaviour is STILL abusive and predatory in an oversupply situation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jf22 5y ago
The promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn.
- pionar 5y ago
  Why not both then?
- xpe 5y ago
  Yes and Netflix (or the organization making the film) can afford to pay more.
- burnished 5y ago
  If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Whats the value of 'promotion' at that point?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Couples who want that photographer they saw on TV.
    - mhdhn 5y ago
      ^ Hello, answer here folks.
    - therouwboat 5y ago
      Is photographer visible in the show? Do they know who she is and how to find her?
    - burnished 5y ago
      Aren't those the people already offering to pay in 'exposure' or 'experience'? I have strong doubt that taking no money from Netflix will help you extract payment from other people.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Normal people getting married would pay a premium for someone who appeared on tv. Paying netflix would be a smart business opportunity.
    - jsdwarf 5y ago
      Your photos might appear on this Netflix show, which doesn't mean that you/your brand will do so. Or it might appear in the closing credits that are usually skipped.
      - JohnWhigham 5y ago
        Then you add it to your own website/socials that you were in a Netflix show.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  How are they worth anything when this sets the standard that the work is worth $0? If anything this moves the needle down on what you can earn later.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    The Super Bowl doesn't pay the halftime performer. How are they worth anything?
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      So who are the nobodies who had their breakout because of the Super Bowl?
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        When dozens of celebrities offer to work for free, they won't pick a nobody. So what are you trying to prove? Do you honestly think it wouldn't skyrocket a new performer's career?
        emodendroket 5y ago
        I think it sounds like an example that doesn't prove what you aim to convince me of.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        The goal was to disprove "this sets the standard that work is worth $0". And celebrities using it in the middle of successful performance careers seems to disprove that idea just fine. You're the one that brought up breakouts, but the part you're demanding proof of is something that's obvious. No, I don't have proof that a nobody performing in the super bowl would have a huge spike in popularity. But I think you're being ridiculous if you think that wouldn't happen. If you want to find a flaw in an argument, demand proof of something that isn't obvious.
- amelius 5y ago
  > The promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn. So now you can put this on your resume: I did this job for Netflix. And by the way, they didn't pay me a dime.
- slaymaker1907 5y ago
  The better question is why a company with as much cash as Netflix can't afford to pay their photographers.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    And not even some new project done on shoe-string budget. But already known and popular one. Kinda makes you wonder of other aspects of their material. They must have some people to do some photo-shoots and some post-production. So why not use those? Or how are they treated?
  - JackFr 5y ago
    As stated in the article, it’s a production company. Netflix buys the product, has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of actually making the show.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  This is one of those things often asserted but rarely proven.
  - Aunche 5y ago
    Brands often pay hundreds of thousands on product placement. I'm not sure that's going to help a photographer though. Coke product placement may motivate me to buy a coke, but it's not like I'm going to hire a wedding photographer 1000 miles away.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Yes, a big company have whole divisions devoted to advertising. But for a business operated by one person it's not really equivalent to talk about doing a full week of work for free, especially one that doesn't prominently display you or your name. Beyond the issue you already mentioned that this is a mostly local business.
  - jf22 5y ago
    You don't know of any person in a service trade that did promo work to build their portfolio? I know auto mechanics, actors, hair people, nail people, home inspectors, photographers, and cooks who have done free work for free promotions. Some people hate on the concept but it's how people get their start in an industry.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      If you think the idea that people will stop valuing things they can get for free and refuse to pay for them is far fetched, I encourage you to see how your hometown newspaper is doing.
      - jf22 5y ago
        Your reply is odd. You wanted "proof" work-for-promotions happen and I just wanted to point out this happens in several trades. Anyway, I don't disagree with your comment at all. Certain trades are undervalued because it takes portfolio building or practice in a professional setting to get started. You seemed to be unaware that this happens but now it seems you do?
tpmx 5y ago
Please expand on why you think so. Edit: Any why this is the case, in this situation. Please explain? (I'm not from the US - I may be missing something.)
- illumanaughty 5y ago
  Because exploiting people is wrong.
  - itake 5y ago
    Can you elaborate how this is exploiting? I am a SWE engineer with photography as a hobby. If a tv show contacted me to do a wedding shoot, I'd be excited for the coverage and I wouldn't feel exploited since doing shoots is fun for me. I could see how there are parallels to the "background actor" industry where, by law, you have to pay all of the talent on screen, even if its a nominal amount and the actor would of worked for free. But that doesn't the case here?
    - pavel_lishin 5y ago
      I hope you can see the difference between doing something for free when it's your hobby, vs. doing something for free when it's your career. If a TV show contacted you do create a web app, would you do that work for free? Would you give up other opportunities to get paid to do so?
      - tpmx 5y ago
        > If a TV show contacted you do create a web app, would you do that work for free? Would you give up other opportunities to get paid to do so? So, say no? (I've done that a couple of times in similar situations.)
      - itake 5y ago
        > would you do that work for free? No, because it is not fulfilling. I do use my career skills to teach under privileged students how to program for free.
kevinskii 5y ago
One time someone asked me for a favor. I thought it was unreasonable so I declined. I didn't realize this sort of thing was "abusive and predatory." I feel so victimized now.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  Unless your neighbor is a gigantic corporate entity and the favor they asked was for you to spend a week dispensing your acquired skills with which you normally achieve your livelihood, then this seems like a totally unreasonable comparison.
- xpe 5y ago
  > One time someone asked me for a favor. I thought it was unreasonable so I declined. I didn't realize this sort of thing was "abusive and predatory." I feel so victimized now. This is uninteresting from my POV and against the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Please help keep HN interesting. Thanks.
  - kevinskii 5y ago
    You're right, I should have left off the last sentence. But words mean things. Let's save the description "abusive and predatory" for things that are, well, abusive and predatory. A voluntary invitation to collaborate does not meet that standard, regardless of its reasonableness.
    - xpe 5y ago
      Perhaps, at the individual level, you can claim that 'voluntary' can never mean abusive. But this would be too simplistic. Many 'voluntary' relationships are abusive. Think about the system implications and dynamics over time here. There are power imbalances and changing expectations. People rarely have the unfettered freedom implicit in your claim. And, if you think beyond the individual level -- at the society level, one's analysis must go much deeper.
gregmac 5y ago
It's clear asking a professional to do this and not being up front about paying $0 is unprofessional and a disrespectful waste of time, but I'm not convinced it's actually predatory or abusive. If someone thinks they'll get more than $their_cost in promotion value, they'll do it. If not, they won't. If no one does, the production company is going to waste a lot of time and burn their reputation trying to avoid what's probably a relatively small expense compared to the budget of their show. It would be even worse if someone wrote an article about it.. oops.
- FabianCC 5y ago
  This. I see the biggest problem with the email conversation that the person asking was not up front with the 0$ payout in the very first paragraph of the email.
skeeter2020 5y ago
That's why I always pay the highest historical price for everything, regardless of changing market conditions. Fairness /s
young_unixer 5y ago
They can just say "no". Problem solved. No abuse, no predation, everyone just goes on with their lives. And if someone wants to say "yes", who are we to tell them what to do with their own time?
- hinkley 5y ago
  Predation is the act, not the outcome. If everyone says 'no', you're just an unsuccessful predator.

happytoexplain 5y ago

This is less about "can" and more about "should". It's bad for everybody when professionals work "for publicity" or are encouraged to do so, despite the relative innocence of the professional who chooses to do so. For the least subtle take on this possible, see: https://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE https://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE

jedberg 5y ago
The amusing irony of that video is that he mostly likely asked to get paid for that interview and now it's on YouTube for free, giving him exposure. :)
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  True, though I wouldn't be surprised if he contacted somebody about this video at some point. Either way, it is the bittersweet truth that Ellison no longer has need for publicity nor payment.
devit 5y ago
It's bad for the other photographers, but good for those looking to acquire photography services.
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
> It's bad for everybody when professionals work "for publicity" or are encouraged to do so It's important that we not allow our moral judgments to interfere with the facts. This is obviously false.
- hluska 5y ago
  No, it's really not. Community minded artists refuse to discount their work because discounting their work cuts out the market for young up and coming artists. Creative communities have been making these decisions for longer than I have even owned a computer.
- Veen 5y ago

prtkgpt 5y ago

Coming soon - "Slaves of Netflix"

jedberg 5y ago

They might get a few in fact. Probably a bunch of desperate wedding photographers after the pandemic needing to kickstart their business again. The question is, will they get multiple people on the shoot for free, and will that get them better pictures than one paid pro? Can you imagine doing the work for free only to find out you're competing with other photographers on the same shoot to get the best shots that they will want to publish so you can get your "exposure payment".

CoastalCoder 5y ago

My wife has done professional wedding photography, and each gig is definitely a lot of work. Especially the post-event editing. But high-end weddings can be very lucrative. If a wedding photographer is (a) ready to perform this level of work, and (b) can afford to do 5 unpaid gigs, and (c) aspires to break into high-end work, I can see this making business sense.

LanceH 5y ago
I was thinking along the same lines. There is a big difference in exposure between a high profile Netflix show and the typical request from an Instagram influencer.

mc32 5y ago

Of course. Photography is one of the lowest paid professions so of course you’ll have people tripping over themselves over the opportunity. Question is should Netflix who are flush with cash be a participant to this Gladiatorial Theater? This is kind of grotesque coming from a company with very deep pockets.

jaywalk 5y ago
As the article mentions, this is not Netflix. It's a third-party production company that is producing content for Netflix. It's extremely likely and almost guaranteed that Netflix has no idea they've been asking photographers to work for free.
- erehweb 5y ago
  Netflix can set the terms and conditions of how their third-party production company works - e.g. requiring that everyone involved gets paid a wage.

BeetleB 5y ago

> They probably will find photographers doing this for the promotion effect described in the email. Almost no couple will care - unless what they produce for Love is Blind is extremely out of the ordinary - but then they won't be able to afford it. There's a very good chance the photographers will get no new business because of this.

ipaddr 5y ago
As seen on Netflix's Love is Blind plus the press interviews is a great deal. The question is how much would you pay for this opportunity? This buys you an instant reputation.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  I'm not convinced. Wedding photography is quite expensive, so people will think quite a bit on who to get and what they're getting out of it. Pretty much everyone I know will not want to pay extra for someone "with a reputation" unless they can demonstrate that they'll do something better than the average wedding photographer. I'm willing to bet whoever is on this show will not really be better. Of course, there are always rich folks for whom money is not an issue, and they won't spend any time thinking about it and will happily pay whatever for the guy who was on that show.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Looking from my own experience so many photographers are available it is hard to determine who may or may not be credible. Having a tv show connection provides that extra confidence that the photos will turn out well. It is one of those moments you can't do over. But if the portfolio wasn't as high quality as others the tv connection wouldn't matter. I would pay a little more to reduce risk. And the biggest draw is brand. I might not have heard of you if not for your connection to the show. This gives you free worldwide branding. You could setup an online store and sell products or sell advice as a side business.

cyberscientist 5y ago

That would have been fine had they asked a young inexperienced photographer with cheaper and less gear. But they asked an established photographer.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Right, that means only wealthy photographers (from family, etc.) can do this. This is where the injustice comes from when ‘unpaid internships’ equals we only want rich kids to work for us. It’s how the situation propagates through time.

differentView 5y ago
How does it benefit an organization to have rich kids working for them for free?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  The organization may not care, but for them it is free.
  - differentView 5y ago
    So what's the problem exactly? The rich kids who don't need the money get exploited for free labor, and?
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      They still get valuable experience that pays off in the future through networking, experience, etc. It starts the snowball of success.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Ekaros 5y ago

I wonder what level promotion they offer? The logo in 72pt visible for whole time when work is shown? Watermarks allowed to be shown at all times? Maybe a 15 minutes of free advertising time?

Netcob 5y ago

Yes, maybe the lucky photographer will be noticed by another large company that is also looking for people who are willing to work for "exposure".

skeeter2020 5y ago
or dozens of people who watched the show and said "I want photos just like that AND we can hire the same photographer!"

cerved 5y ago

I'd say it's more related to the freelance nature of the job. Also it's a lot more common in industries with high supply combined with relatively "well off" young professionals that do it for "fun" and "exposure" ie creative industries

ryanackley 5y ago

The promotion effect seems like a fair trade IMO. I was a software freelancer at one point. I would've traded 5 days of work for getting my business (and face) in front of 30 million people.

skeeter2020 5y ago
That's essentially what professional develoeprs who maintain popular open source projects are doing.
BeetleB 5y ago
Huge difference between the two. You have the opportunity to write SW that all those 30 million people can buy. A wedding photographer in Seattle doesn't really care if someone in Houston sees her work. Also it's not comparable to missing 5 days of work. There's more work involved and it'll take longer than 5 days. It's not like they do 5 shoots every week.

meowzero 5y ago

I almost transitioned into photography as my career. In fashion photography (and probably other genres), the editorial spreads in your fashion magazines, (Vogue, Harper's, etc) aren't paid much. They are for promotion. They do pay though. They are also selective on who they choose to photograph a specific story. Even though that gig is way below most professional fashion photographer's day rate, most pros will do anything to get that chance. You also get to work with world class peers like hair, makeup artists, models, stylists, etc. So it's a great deal for everyone. In Netflix's case, it feels more like exploitation. They aren't paying. And even though they're "Netflix" they don't have that clout like Vogue or Harpers to have top wedding photographers to get at that chance. Also, they have to shoot 5 weddings! 1 wedding is a lot of work and stress, but to do 5 for free is a lot to ask a professional photographer. It's like asking a software engineer to build 5 different applications for free for a chance to pad their resume. But this type of stuff is pretty common in the industry, although frowned upon by Photographers. A lot of celebrities, brands, agencies, etc. will try to get free shots from photographers all the time. And they will usually find some desperate person who will take the chance to do it. I've done it, and I had friends who did it. I'm sure Netflix will find someone to do it as well.