Should photographers do business like Production Companies in Film?

Posted by | Filed under From Greg's Desk | Feb 16, 2011 | 1 Comment

Last week I had a spirited discussion over on APE about whether young photographers should be encouraged to make a career out of photography. You can read the dialog here.  It’s getting pretty heated over there.

I’ve been wondering for some time if photographers shouldn’t band together to share expenses like production companies do in the film industry. Why not share the cost of a studio and gear and insurance and mailing lists and a studio manager and a reatoucher? That is what companies do when they consolidate businesses: put everything under one roof and you lower your costs. Sure, I know that everyone is going to start freaking out about copyright to their images, but all that has to be done is written agreements that say that each photographer in the Photographer’s Collective Corporation owns copyright to their images and then you are all fine. I also think that photographers’ egos prevent them from joining forces with other photographers.

Reps could do this. It would be added responsibility for them, but I think this may have to happen for photographers to continue to enter the business at a high level.

I know some photographer co-ops have been formed. I wonder if others are soon to follow?

Share and Enjoy

One Response to “Should photographers do business like Production Companies in Film?”

 

  • Chris says:

    February 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    It has been something that’s definitely crossed my mind in the recent past, especially with all of my experiences collaborating with students in other fields at SCAD. These days it seems like it would be good to have maybe two photographers, a cinematographer/DP, a visual effects/CGI artist, and at least one retoucher all under one roof.

    Ah and it would be so much fun!

     


 

 

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Uncontroversial treatments best place to buy viagra online canadian pharmacy viagra for sale Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis all belong to a class of drugs called phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors. Taken an hour before sexual activity, these drugs work by enhancing the effects of nitric oxide, a chemical that relaxes smooth muscles in the penis during sexual stimulation and allows increased blood flow. What better, Viagra or Cialis? viagra no prescription online Erectile dysfunction was associated with a four-fold increased risk of multi-vessel disease as opposed to single-vessel disease. If you need viagra 40mg cialis for sale Erectile dysfunction, or ED, can be a total inability to achieve erection, an inconsistent ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain only brief erections. These variations make defining ED and estimating its incidence difficult. Estimates range from 15 million to 30 million, depending on the definition used. According to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), for every 1,000 men in the United States, 7.7 physician office visits were made for ED in 1985. By 1999, that rate had nearly tripled to 22.3. The increase happened gradually, presumably as treatments such as vacuum devices and injectable drugs became more widely available and discussing erectile function became accepted. Perhaps the most publicized advance was the introduction of the oral drug sildenafil citrate (Viagra) in March 1998. NAMCS data on new drugs show an estimated 2.6 million mentions of Viagra at physician office visits in 1999, and one-third of those mentions occurred during visits for a diagnosis other than ED. When ED happens to someone so young they typically blame it on their job or alternative stress factors in their life. They do not often acknowledge it for what it is until it's too late. They may undergo relationship issues or even the break from a wedding simply primarily based on the actual fact that they'll’t get erections throughout sex.

Prescription cialis » Online Pharmacy Store