That recent New York Times article caused a kerfuffle by highlighting the impact of digital imaging, photo sharing, stock photography etc. In a nutshell, how does a professional photographer survive and thrive when imagery is everywhere, and generally free or nearly so? Or as Seth Godin put it, how are "average photographers" going to make a living shooting weddings "when the guests can do almost as well and all the photos are going on flickr anyway"? Case in point... Our own Danny married Natalie recently. Needless to say they hired a photographer ... but if they hadn't? They have heaps of photos and feedback on Facebook, and in true geek fashion the proceedings were broadcast on ustream.tv. One thing's for sure – we've come a long way since Heather's and my wedding, and our solitary remaining photo!

§

In his response to the NYT last week, Christian Oth made a couple of good points. The very trends the NYT is discussing have also massively increased the consumption of photography, and this has "opened up incredible opportunities for the pros out there who are truly talented". I agree with Christian, but I think this conversation also highlights the need for professionals to be out there and online with the amateurs. Same battleground if you like, different standards. What does that mean? In my February newsletter I suggested photographers could learn something from musicians. Like their local singer-songwriter, photographers probably need to give stuff away to make money. I described how, in 2008, when Nine Inch Nails allowed their new album to be downloaded legally for free, they were just acknowledging the reality that the files would be downloaded and copied anyway. And yet NIN's album was also the best-selling MP3 album of 2008 at Amazon.com, and the band made a fortune selling limited edition sets with extras like Blu-ray discs and deluxe packaging.

§

If the challenge for musicians is to make a living when their products are "free", the good news is that photographers' problems aren't quite that extreme, or at least they have more control (and no, I don't mean because they own copyright).

1. The value of their images is specific to the people in the viewfinder (your clients are after images of themselves getting married, not just anyone).

2. And your photographs aren't out there (and shareable) until you say so.

So ... it's easy! Just take exceptional imagery of your clients (undeniably better and more desirable than the amateurs) and don't "distribute" it until you get paid (a teaser, sure, but that's all). It then becomes just a matter of what you offer, and how you manage the negotiation. Important details, but details.

§

But as I said in February, once I'd made my money I’d be really generous with those images, which "cost me nothing". Files, slideshows, DVDs whatever. Those things that everybody wants but nobody wants to pay much for because their default price is Free. How generous I was would depend on how generous they were. Bought well? Stand back, here come the goodies! Some photographers are uneasy about going too "public" with what they do, but I'd also use those images to establish my reputation and value. Online where the business is done and contacts made. In the studio where I can show prospects every album I created last year. It's even more important today to have the right, and to set the expectation, that client imagery can be published online in this way. Done right, clients will generally see online sharing as positive, part of their celebration. I enjoy the feeling of engagement and sharing that people like Binky, Jonathon and Naomi or Justine express in their blogs. Cheers, Ian PS Speaking of sharing, it's great to see some of you supporting our new "I own a Queensberry" Facebook page. We'd love it if you joined us!