/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

Be a good photographer if you want to charge people. There are a lot of hobby photographers who take amazing photos, go to a lot of conventions, and don't charge a cent.

There are people who set up neutral backgrounds and offer photos and prints for 5-10 dollars each, but they pay the convention for the spot.

I think if you're charging people to practice your photography that's wrong. It's nice to want to make some money while doing something you like, but if your skills don't match the price then you won't get anyone to practice with.

If he wants to charge for photoshoots on the con premises. He needs to get a permit. He's offering services for a fee. He's basically trying to do the same thing that the food vendors, artists, and exhibitors are doing but without paying the proper fees.

If he wants to set up photoshoots and have them done OUTSIDE the con premises. He can do that, but if he wants to do the photoshoots on con grounds. He needs to pay the proper dues. The con has every right to tell him that he's not welcome to charge without getting the cons permission. Especially if he's trying to do this without the cons permission.

Basically get the cons permission to charge for shoots and pay your permit fees. Otherwise, the con can tell you to get the hell out of their space. They paid for it.

Why are they being such an asshole?
Poor guy.

I think it's retarded to charge people for photoshoots, but that staff member's responses were incredibly rude to the point of being out of line.

If he's selling services without their permission when vendors have to pay for vending space, I totally get it. Seems a bit wrong to me, and I agree that if he's looking for practice, doesn't seem right to charge others. I've posed for professional photographers before for the sake of practice, and they didn't charge a cent.

The tone the staff member took was entirely unprofessional, though, and reflects badly upon the con.

Isn't she just one of those people that have no power else where but at this con so try to abuse it as much as they can?

I feel bad for the guy, she;s being a complete cunt about it.

>it doesn't state anywhere about this at all
>YEAH? WELL WE'RE STILL TRYING TO STOP IT, IM JUST GONNA IGNORE THAT YOU SAID ANYTHING AT ALL

>>6799102
>she
If you have no idea what you're talking about, you should probably keep your opinions to yourself.

Partially I think both parties involved in the disagreement are idiots.

I tend to err towards caution though.

The Kalahari (where the convention is located) is rather unique as far as convention locations go. With a waterpark, and live animals they are a little more guarded with what happens on their property.

People are idiots, and if one photographer stepped out of line in the past the location could be quite uptight about it and that gets passed onto the convention staff.

Also charging for photoshoots is pretty bogus. There is little to gain from getting photos of oneself taken at a convention.

So why the fuck pay for it. (to the cosplayers)

So why the fuck charge for it. (to the photographers)

>>6799107
>squint at facebook icon
>recognize that cosplay
Oh, that explains it.

>>6799114
If you're going to make generalizing statements about people you don't know, you should be better at pretending you know what you're talking about.

>>6799080
>There are people who set up neutral backgrounds and offer photos and prints for 5-10 dollars each, but they pay the convention for the spot.
There's one of these booths at my local con, but they take the pics for free, upload the ones you like online and you only pay if you want prints from them.

I like them, they're very nice people, but god damn their post-processing (or I guess it could be their camera settings?) is awful. Everyone, including small children, gets the skin of a 70 year old tanning addict.

>>6799126
>profile picture appears to be a pink outfit with long blonde hair
>assume it's a woman

CHEK UR PRIVLG CISKUM

>>6799135
This.

Honestly, only casuals use photobooths, anyone who knows better and wants actually decent photos of their cosplay gets on-location, free shoots from photographers around the con.

>Two, I own a 5D and a 3100 as well as multiple Macs (Loaded with PS,LR & FCP)

For fucks sake. People who make remarks like this are morons. In no way does having a nice or owning more than 1 mac make you a competent photography or even knowable in the least.

I don't think anything is wrong with charging for photos. Despite what some people think it it takes a lot of time and hard work to learn how to take amazing photographs. Nothing wrong with getting paid for it. It's no different than if someone went up to a cosplayer and asked for a free costume. Just like anyone else who has taken the time to learn how to create and hone their skill ,you are going to want to be paid for it.

It may only take 10 seconds to take a photo but it really takes 10 seconds + however long they have honed their skill.

>>6799137
Aw, you're just embarrassed that you got caught being retarded. That's okay, anon.

>>6799145
I'm not even that guy you're just an idiot.

>>6799102
>>6799107
>>6799114
>>6799126
>>6799137
>>6799145

is this how girls argue
i thought there would be more slaping

>>6799151
oh no i can't spell fuk me

>>6799144
>...In no way does having a nice or owning more than 1 mac make you a competent photography...

Pretty universally true there.

>I don't think anything is wrong with charging for photos. Despite what some people think it it takes a lot of time and hard work to learn how to take amazing photographs. Nothing wrong with getting paid for it. It's no different than if someone went up to a cosplayer and asked for a free costume. Just like anyone else who has taken the time to learn how to create and hone their skill ,you are going to want to be paid for it.

Yes and no.
There should be an expectation to get paid to do the things you are good at doing.

But when there is no tangible benefit and an extremely small chance of any intangible benefit for the people paying you, you are just blowing smoke up your own ass.


>It may only take 10 seconds to take a photo but it really takes 10 seconds + however long they have honed their skill.

Payment is for an end result, not for the effort or knowledge.

It's just 4ng31 taking his hateboner for paid photographers out on everyone else. If the con doesn't have an actual rule in place yet, he's just throwing his weight around.

>>6799189
>Payment is for an end result, not for the effort or knowledge.

Unfortunately that's not how it works in the real world.

>>6799207
See, this is the problem with these con people. OMG YOU CAN'T TRY TO MAKE A LIVING SELLING THINGS! But yes, yes you can. Cons aren't some sort of magical place free of real world rules. One of my friends is a photographer and does his shoots for free and then charges for the photos afterwards. He usually makes money that way because of the teaser photos he puts up.

>>6799207

Fairly certain that is exactly how it works.


Its the nature of a trade. You get something in return.

If you give me something I can't use or get no benefit from...

You can be damn sure the only thing you can get from me is a bag of flaming dog shit on your doorstep.

>>6799217

I have to admit this makes a lot more sense than charging up front.

If people are dumb enough to cough up their money, take it.

Don't be an ass about it though.

>>6799219
Sure you get something in return, doesn't mean it's good quality.

>You can be damn sure the only thing you can get from me is a bag of flaming dog shit on your doorstep.

So edgy.

There are plenty of people of people out there that are being payed to do a job they can't do properly.

>>6799108
>There is little to gain from getting photos of oneself taken at a convention.

Little to gain? Am I misreading this? If you're getting a photoshoot done, it's because you want the damn pictures. You're asking for a service.

Getting a photoshoot at a convention is no different than taking your family out to get their pictures taken. Both should cost money.

I always pay for my photoshoots so I have something to show for my costume (I could give two shits about the ugly ass pictures people take of me in the halls.)

If anyone pays for a photographer who's essentially a toddler with a camera, it's their own damn fault for not looking at prior work.

>>6799219
So then if you are asking someone to take photos of you then you don't want them?

>>6799144
>>6799189

I'll just point out, the part you singled out about cameras and macs is the con staff replying to the photographer saying his equipment isn't cheap. Con staff was trying to say he also has expensive equipment. Not a word implied that this expensive equipment made him a better photog, only that "expensive equipment" is not a good excuse to start charging for practicing photography.

>>6799241

Actually, it is a good excuse. You and the con staff guy are confused about hobbies and professions.
When you buy equipment to satisfy a hobby, you generally don't intend on making the money back. You bought it to have fun.
When you buy equipment for a profession, you generally justify the expense because you know you'll make it back in services.

I bought expensive kitchen equipment because I love to cook for folks and I'm good at it. That doesn't mean McDonalds should give their services away for free because I am.

Regardless of the subject of paying for photographers at cons, I am really disgusted by how that staff member responded. They were rude right from their first post, even when the guy was polite about it. It really makes the whole con look bad when you have staff members that act so hostile and arrogant.

>>6799253

Ah, no, you misunderstand my intent too. I'm not taking sides in the argument. The two anons up ahead are saying that the con staff is listing his equipment as if it makes him a better photographer, but clearly this is not right. The con staff makes a point that he also owns expensive equipment, says that it's not a reason to charge money. He doesn't actually say he is a better photographer.

Whether you think owning expensive equipment in the context of profession vs hobby justifies a photographer offering his services without paying some fee to the con that's hosting the event is a whole other issue entirely. I'm just pointing out the mistake the other two anons made.

>>6799275

My bad, thanks for clarifying. I still stand by my comments, just directed at the prior anons instead of you.

>>6799257

agree. I don't care about the photography issue but cons really need to start policing how their staff respond in an official capacity because it just makes the whole outfit look unprofessional as fuck

>>6799257
Which is why Chris should never be on any staff position that involves public relations, ever. He doesn't have a tactful bone in his body.

Pro-Tip : The sleeze photographer actually photoshopped that conversation together out of a PM. That was not an official statement, but a private, personal conversation between two parties.

>>6799292

hey Soni.

I've really found that con heads get this swelled sense of unwarranted self importance like this. Especially from anime con heads.

Oh look, I have power so I can be a huge unprofessional douchebag if I don't like things. Enjoy never getting anywhere in the real world, outside of animecons, douchestaff

>>6799292
And? Doesn't give you an excuse to be a complete assfuck to someone for no reason.

Okay, so we all know 4ng31 can be a cock in how he comes across to people, but do we know anything about the photographer? It looks like he's been doing this for a while (charging for photoshoots). Nothing about his pictures strikes me as particularly good or even worth paying a shoot for. I've done a free shoot with the same, if not better, quality.

Honestly, I think this guy is just kind of having a bitchfit. I'm not terribly impressed by his photography in the first place, and his "reasonable charges" are $30 for one person for 45 minutes?? That aside, while the con staff was definitely a dick to him, it was really unprofessional for him to bring this to tumblr and basically cause a shitstorm on purpose; all the while acting high and mighty about it.

>"it would be extremely unfortunate for not only the photographers, but the cosplayers as well if nobody is able to get nice images of their cosplays next year!"

yeah, like there are no good photographers who shoot for free and are willing to follow the rules without being a dick about it. The staffer may have been rude, but you're not being any better, and it's really unprofessional.

>>6799325
yeah, but posting private conversations is unprofessional and just plain douchey

>>6799189
>But when there is no tangible benefit and an extremely small chance of any intangible benefit for the people paying you, you are just blowing smoke up your own ass

If you aren't that good people won't buy it. Simple as that, so there still shouldn't be any issue trying to sell.

>Payment is for an end result, not for the effort or knowledge

The end result is the product of the effort and knowledge.

>>6799227
Why would you pay someone to take your photos without checking out their work? Most decent photographers will have a portfolio or a website that you can easily check out first.

If you are buying something without checking it out first it's your fault when you get shit.

Nothing wrong with charging for professional photos. It's a common practice and there's nothing at all unethical about it.

The person "in charge of press" for the con is being unprofessional, rude and presumptuous. It's not against the rules at the con to charge for photos so she's essentially just using bullying tactics to try to dissuade people from doing what she doesn't personally like. Total bullshit.

The photographer should contact con staff and alert them on what this person is doing.

I don't know, I used to offer to take pics for people back in the days when digital cams were new and barely anyone had them. Usualy money wasn't exchanged but sometimes it was if they were taking a lot of my time, and sometimes it just worked out where a handjob or blowjob would be offered when we did a long shoot in a room.

>>6799217
I hate douchebags like this. If you want to charge, tell people in advance and don't be a sneaky bastard. Don't waste my time when I could be shooting with people for free because I'm not going to pay for your ship.

>con volunteer in charge of press
>going on a crusade to change con policy and act as con police

This girl shouldn't be staffing at any con.

>>6799599
It's a guy.

>>6799193
Yep. This. End of story.

I think it might be because the person had gotten a press pass and wanted to charge for photoshoots and then this shit happened. Which would've been better handled privately as "Oh, I see you want to charge. Well, you can't do that with a press pass, so you'll have to pay for a pass or don't offer paid photoshoots, your choice." But instead...

Way to go brosef.

>>6799618
isn't that that asshole ang13 or whatever his name is that tripfags here?

If someone wants to pay for it, let them. There's a lot of free shooters for those who don't want to pay. Some are good, some are bad.

>>6799647
What if they aren't going for a press pass? The guy said he pays for his badge anyway

>>6799647
Too bad the con isn't apologizing for their staff trying publicly attack others based on their personal emotional baggage.

>>6799673
sure is

>>6799680
apparently it was via PM, doesn't excuse the behavior though

I don't really see how they would clamp down on things either. Are they going to have staff patrol down the halls asking anyone with a camera and a cosplayer on the other side whether they are paying or not? Are they going to have people outside the convention area doing that too?

I wouldn't be surprised if you-know-who was the one who wrote that post on the Collosalcon account.

>>6799683
lol that explains a lot then. That dude is a fucking raging douchebag.

>>6799695
No that wasn't the person. It's copypasted from another colossalcon facebook group. I think it's general upper-staff or the con head writing about the situation in order to explain it. I don't think you-know-who would be able to write something professional and level-headed about the situation publicly, much less directly under that account.

As someone who takes decent pics at cons, I honestly don't like the charging people thing. It does appear to be a rip-off most times - and though SOMETIMES it may not be, keep it as a separate business or something away from cons. That shit is just obnoxious to me.

>>6799257

This.

Ok, everyone has different stances according to what is/isn't ok and until there is an OFFICIAL rule on the website/public statemend, Chris needs to stop. He's coming off as a holier-than-thou asshat who is powertripping. It's highly unprofessional, especially to make himself apprear more 'professional' because of his mass of 'expert' equipment.

He should have just contacted the actual people running Colossal, updated the website (if in fact this is against the rules) and then linked the kid to that. Right now it just seems like he's picking on him for charging for photos.

>>6799774
You can't tell an asshole to stop being an asshole any more than you can tell a dog to stop licking himself. Some people just have bad personalities.

But yeah, he is unprofessional and shouldn't be on staff. Some people are just ill-fit to do the jobs they volunteer for.

You know, I go to cons.. And I love having good photos of my costumes. They're just.. fun to have. It feels good to show of the effort I put into my costume with good photos.

I haven't yet paid for a shoot.. My cosplay comm actually has a pretty good hobbyist photographer who looooves to shoot anyone and everything. He's great. (I also roped my boyfriend into picking up a camera for basically the first time and taking a few photos for me.. And I did some processing on my own. Pic related.. Photog's on left.. mine on right. They both have really different feels.)

But I would /happily/ pay for a photoshoot. Very happily. But only if I loved the photog's work and I felt that he could shoot me well.

I don't understand the issue that people have with photog's charging for shoots... If you don't want to pay, then don't. Simple as that. Go on forums, or model mayhem and find people who will shoot you for free or even, best case scenario, pay you to be their model.

People are silly.

And this "Chris" fella is kind of a faggot.

>>6799834
Nobody has a problem with it. It's not even a controversy. The guy in OP's pic just being an asshat.

wall o text ahoy

>>6799834
In this case, it seems like it has less to do with the actual nature of service the photog is providing but the venue that they're shooting at. For example, national parks, landmarks, and other sites of interest will probably require some sort of fee or license in order to take pictures that include the likeness of a famous place. I think the venue of ColossalCon is covering their asses in the interest of the venue's wishes rather than trying to prohibit photogs from making a profit.

>>6799834
and your Sona is a piece of shit and I would appreciate it if you stop wearing it in public just because it appeals to your boyfriends fetish

Am I the only one who likes the staffer in this? When I put the effort into making the costumes I do, I am entitled to at LEAST pro-grade photos.

>>6800138
They've got a point and I think they're being fair about their stance.
/mytwofuckingcents

You idiots supporting photographers being allowed to charge at a con are fucking full of SHIT. How many times do we have to say this? Artists and dealers PAY the convention in order to be allowed to make a profit. Why the hell should photographers be allowed to make a profit for FREE? Don't like it? Get the fuck off the convention grounds.

>>6800458
In b4 "They paid for a badge." So did the artists and dealers

>>6800443
I agree with the point. But I don't agree with the execution. Once you say "I'm staff" in any conversation with an attendee, you are representing the convention, be it a private or public conversation. There are ways to handle things and there are ways not to. This is a prime example of how to make yourself and the convention you are representing look like gaping assholes. Just sayin.

The second-hand embarrassment is overwhelming.

>>6800462
What? No, artists and dealers only pay for the cost of their table, and it usually ends up being cheaper to sell things at a con than to buy the badge. Also, a lot of cons have press passes in place for this sort of thing. You need to calm down.

>>6800458
Even if you say "whoops not allowed" who is going to enforce it? It's easy to spot people trying to sell stuff outside the alley or dealers hall. Figuring out who is doing a paid shoot and who is just doing it for free? You're going to have to actively allocate people to do that and that's just not going to be very effective.

As far as permits go, yeah, you're *supposed* to have them but a lot of people don't get them. Engagement/portrait shooters just ignore it because no one enforces it. Occasionally you have a park ranger pop up but that's pretty rare that they even know about permits or even care. They don't get paid extra to clamp down on that. And cops? They have better things to do.

>>6800488
>and it usually ends up being cheaper to sell things at a con than to buy the badge

You do realize how much artist alley tables and vendors booths usually cost, don't you?

>>6800458
The people in artists alley or the exhibit hall are paying for vendor space to sell merchandise. That has nothing to do with the private exchange for a service. Nor is there anything wrong with it.

The fags at collosalcon are just being butthurt because they had to deal with an instance where a guy got a press badge and sold photography services, now they think all people who sell their photographic services at a con are somehow scum.

It's a stupid point of view and luckily it's only this retarded con that is trying to make an issue out of it.

I guess the reason they call it "Colosalcon" is because it's ran by colossal assholes.

>>6800524
Because one colossal asshole means all those who staff the convention are inherently assholes as well and come from a hive-mind. Yep. That's sound logic.

>>6800511
All they have to do is what they're thinking about which is not giving press badges to cosplay photogs. That's it. AX did it a while ago. Some of my cosplay photog friends just don't get a badge and roam the halls where you don't need a badge or work outside. Others work for actual press outlets (articles, interviews with guests, the works) so the primary purpose is still being fulfilled.

>>6800511
>That has nothing to do with the private exchange for a service. Nor is there anything wrong with it.
If that were the case, most conventions wouldn't have the rule about prohibiting sales in any area of the convention BUT the dealer's hall/AA/swap meet. It's not the easiest thing to enforce, sure, since you can't go room to room to make sure people aren't dealing goods behind closed doors, but most cons still have that rule in writing so that they can be within the means to enforce it if the case arises.

>>6800557
The guy in charge of the con is supporting the asshole's sentiment, so it's essentially the same thing.

>>6800564
lot easier to enforce the sales rule than it is the no photography rule

>>6800563
>All they have to do is what they're thinking about which is not giving press badges to cosplay photogs. That's it.

Well duh. What kind of retard thinks that "press" and "photographer" are the same thing? You're not a member of the press unless you belong to a journalistic organization.

It's like saying "In future conventions, we will no longer will be handing out press badges to members of the circus. We've had problems with clowns getting press badges in the past and use them to commit acts of juggling at the con. This really pissed off Suzie down in promotions. This will will not be tolerated."

>>6800564
They only "prohibit" sales concerning merchandise because of contractual obligations. No convention in the history of mankind has ever had a problem with a person selling photographic services. You're trying to manufacture issues that don't exist.

>>6800591
>We've had problems with clowns getting press badges in the past and use them to commit acts of juggling at the con. This really pissed off Suzie down in promotions. This will will not be tolerated."
That's amusingly a good explanation of what happened

>>6800607
Bullllllshiiit dr tran.

you didnt go to katsucon did ya corn fucker?

>>6799069
I think it's funny that when the guy used the term "practice his work", Chris chose to snark about how he could just practice for free, when the guy obviously meant it in the "doing the job that I am skilled at", i.e. how someone practices a trade. Either he just doesn't know that definition, which is funny because it's not an uncommon usage, or it's yet another instance of selective arguing that he is so good at. OTOH I do agree that a person selling a service, especially in significant amounts at a con, shouldn't be magically exempt from the fees and requirements other dealers and vendors have ( for instance in some states cons must get tax related info from their vendors for legal reasons), if anything, that might manage to add some QC to the overload of "cosplay photographers", but there was no reason to be so bitchy and arrogant about it, whether it was in PM or not. If dude is trying to stir up drama on him over it by posting all of this tho, it's just going to backfire on him in the end anyway, especially regarding the con staff.

> It's ok to be a dick if nobody finds out

>>6800687
Or maybe he's just a dumb faggot that thinks that a conversation on someone's status post isn't a public affair and doesn't realize anyone can view it.

>>6800724

Heh you newfags
4ng13 dont give an fuck. Also that bitchass fauxtog edited the conversation in the tumblr post.

Also who the fuck makes a livelyhood as a cosplay photographer?

>>6800781
>4ng13 dont give an fuck.

If he doesn't then why has he updated his facebook about this at least 8-10 times since it started?

butthurt4life

>>6800524
lol this

>>6800806
Screencaps?

>>6799296
I was out all day, this is the first I'm seeing this thread. Also, why would I even take my trip off for a comment I already made on my public page?

Not that they can stop photographers from shooting in the Kalahari's space. Angel just has a severely raw anus over the fact that they've been cosplay irrelevant for about four years.

>>6799292

Are you retarded? The format completely changes, of course its a PM. It even says "Conversation started today." It's not the mattr of Chris being a fucktard publicly, it's the matter of him being one in general. Don't you think someone who can apparently run a whole press department would have the self restraint to treat an attendee respectfully even in a PM?

> Convention doesn't want to give out badges to people that don't deserve them

>Cosplayer Nation is a guest

>>6801093

What's wrong with Cosplayer Nation? I've only just recently heard of them.

>>6801131
If I had to guess that poster's point is that Cosplayer Nation is more or less glorified cosplay photographers but are officially "guests" Now, whether or not they are "guests who are paying" is anyone's guess (are they paying for a booth spot? other equivalent trade for the convention? or are they just there?)

>>6801211

http://www.youtube.com/user/CosplayerNationTv

This youtube channel is their entire claim to fame, and no. They are there as appearance fee receiving, autograph signing, bona fide guests.

>>6801259
One of the videos is a bunch of photos on a table. I guess it does have a guy speaking in French but... uh.. this is not a good use of the medium.

This is incredibly low budget and unprofessional to the point that I would be embarrassed to put my name on it if I had participated somehow.

>>6800687
lol that guy is so stupid. "It's not representative of the convention of it's done via private message." When you have some dumbfuck messaging people saying "I am a head-hancho staffer and I'm here to put a stop to you" that is being representative of the con. It's like he thinks it doesn't count if it's only being a dick to one person in secret.

Nevermind that one of his press volunteers is going around attempting to bully people on facebook into not doing things he doesn't like at the con. Nope, that's just fine. Because after all, "we all have our opinions!"

>>6799292
>>6800781
Soni and 4ng13 detected.


>suddenly slaps their tripnames back on after being found out
>"Oh, this is the first time I saw it here! I swear!"

I would almost feel sorry for the "photographer," except his one example photo is shit and his fees are ridiculously high for an untrained goober taking snapshots. So I can kind of see where staff would figure he's just an opportunist looking to sucker idiot teenagers.

>>6800458

Dunno about the other anons, but the few times I've paid a photog for a shoot was at a con, but off con-grounds. We did location shooting near the convention area.

And look, I'd rather pay a little to a photographer that I know does good work and will make me look good, than spend a few hours of my time with someone I set up an appointment with online for free only to receive overly photoshopped crap. I'm not saying there aren't good freebie photogs, but if I want a quality photoshoot with a photographer I trust, I'll pay for it.

>>6801309
It isn't staff's job to police who is good enough a photographer to take pics at a con. Trying to do so is childish and obnoxious.

>>6801317
>2013
>replying to 4ng13 in a serious manner

I don't think this woman understands what the word practice means in the context.

First of all, with a few exceptions I think it's stupid to charge for photo's at cons because most con photographers aren't good enough to get paid to take photos and those that are usually do it for free anyway because they make a killing off of wedding and special event photography.

But besides my personal opinion the con staff member is not in the wrong. When you charge people for photos onsite you're doing a service for a fee. As said, it's no different from being a vendor and those people pay additional fee's in order to have permissions to use the premises for that purpose. If you want to charge for photo's onsite, you get permission and pay any necessary fee's. Simple as that.

I think it's super retarded that he's trying to "make a living" off of convention photography. Get a real fucking job because unless you start doing event and other professional photography you're to be living in your parents basement for much longer.

>>6801405
You don't have to pay the convention for a private transaction, dumbfuck. The people in the exhibit hall are paying for the space, not the right to sell. There is nothing against the rules at the con for charging for a photo and a convention staffer sending people private messages to try to antagonize attendees is uncalled for and childish.

>>6801447
Don't most places have solicitation rules? No unauthorized sales on their property?

>>6801452
This refers only to the physical exchange of the money. You can easily perform the service there, as long as you leave the grounds to exchange payment.

I think both people are acting stupid about it.

Charging for photos at a convention is silly. But hey, if someones stupid enough to pay, then thats their problem. Dont do it at the convention. I've seen people set up booths taking a photo with a backdrop, and charging if you want prints - but they count as vendors and pay the convention for that. If you want to charge idiots money in space the convention has paid for, get your proper permit or pay the convention. It's simple.

But on the other hand, it was handled badly by the staffer who just seems like someone desperate to use any authority they have (or dont have.) They should have messaged the person involved, not started saying things like theyre ripping kids off, etc.

If it's such a problem for the convention, make a rule against it.

>>6799217
Your friend is a douchebag, assuming he doesn't tell the cosplayer first. I absolutely hate "photographers" who do this.

They are both faggots, but the con staff is a bigger faggot.

I agree that the photographer shouldn't be able to charge for photos at the con without the permission of the convention itself, but that staff response was extremely rude. If anyone on the committee for the convention that I'm on did that, they'd be out on their ass in seconds.

>>6801476
I don't see anything wrong with charging for a photo. Great photos from someone with an awesome setup and knows how to take a killer picture is a valuable service. This is why photographers at weddings and other events make such good money.

The philosophy that every photographer should give away pictures for free is mostly just a cosplay community mentality since cosplayers are so used to swapping around shitty photos and not appreciating what a truly awesome photographer who knows his shit can do.

Going to cons just to make some money off photos might seem a little lame, but then again, so is going to conventions just to dress up in costumes in the hopes of whoring yourself for attention from strangers.

What if a cosplayer who spent $1000s (because it happens) to make a cosplay charged everyone that tried to take a picture of them? Everyone would go ape shit...But these photographers who go there to "make a living" from taking picture of cosplayers should be allowed to? Why? Artists/anyone selling anything need to pay for vendor's space. If a photographer wants to charge for photos, they should pay for a booth and actually set up some decent backdrops or something.

I'm not going to pay someone to take my photo at a con. I would pay someone if I was going to do a shoot outside con grounds, sure...But the fact is so many cosplay photographers will do things for free/to build up a portfolio (time for prints/photo). If a con wants to put a stop to someone soliciting on grounds they have to pay to use they can. I think that this photographer is a bit of a scumbag to be honest. Plus, having this kind of policy in place will stop these arseholes who buy normal badges making a profit/those other worse arseholes who will take some pictures, AND THEN tell you if you want them, you have to pay, which is totally bull shit.

Regarding Chris' attitude:
While his first post was a bit stern, anything after that should be viewed while considering this guy was persisting rather than saying "Oh, I understand, it's against con policy, I'm sorry."

When you really push in the way he did, it can be fucking annoying. He was acting entitled, bottom line.

The photographer can always just take hall photos and hand out business cards advertising his work for people to possibly hire him on their own time or during another con which doesn't have policies against charging for photos.

I do feel Chris needs to learn how to give civil initial responses when replying as staff rather than stern, condescending responses, but his first reply really wasn't that bad. Not everyone has a thick skin and could take it personally like this guy did.

Even though the photog was in the wrong, it ended with quite a bit of bad PR for the con.

Regarding the issue itself:
I'd just be repeating what's already said. Typically you need a permit to shoot on private property, and hotels/convention centers are considered private property.

Artists and dealers have to pay in order to make a profit at the con. Allowing photographers to just buy a normal badge and make a profit would be incredibly unfair to the other people doing business at the con.

This guy doesn't even have a photography website and I don't see a DA or even an MM profile linked on his Tumblr. To me, that seems like he's more of a hobbyist rather than a professional and he shouldn't be charging in the first place, but that's purely my own opinion on the matter.

Even most model photographers do TFP/TFCD work to build a diverse profile first, rather than just buying a camera and expecting everyone to pay them simply for owning expensive equipment and knowing how to point it in the right direction.

>>6800506
I meant because you end up making your money back by selling things even though you spend money for the space...

>>6799107
>implying i care
>implying you've seen its genitals

eat shit, bitch

>>6799107
Also, how hard is it to sub he for she if thats the case? Huuurrrr I'm so knowledgeable about retards!

Much like many con policies, just fucking deal with it. Let people know youre doing photo shoots, and youre doing them off site. If you want on-site, contact whothefuckever from the location site ( I doubt there will be fees) and just move the fuck on. It didn't need to even come to that. Once the dude said "get permits" it should've been "Okay." not,
>oh I didn't like your attitude baaww
>WELL SUCK IT UP BAWWW
It's not hard to shoot an e-mail.

Both are idiots but I'm seriously leaning towards the photog being a bit more immature for not letting the conversation die.

Have to say that I totally agree 100% that Cosplay photographers have no reason to get press passes. The whole point of giving out free badges to press is to get free advertising for your con when publications run articles about it. For people who are press, the point of having a pass is to get them access to the things they need to cover. As somebody who is both a staffer at a major con and a legitimate member of the press, it's maddening that we have to jump through hoops to get our passes at other cons thanks to all of the Cosplay photographers who have exploited the press system.

>>6801735
>anything after that should be viewed while considering this guy was persisting rather than saying "Oh, I understand, it's against con policy, I'm sorry."
Um... it ISN"T against con policy. Why should a person apologize and have to stop something just because some dickhead sends him a message stating how he's a big shot con volunteer and doesn't like it? Fuck you.

>Even though the photog was in the wrong, it ended with quite a bit of bad PR for the con
The photographer did absolutely NOTHING wrong at all. They got bad PR because their PR is attacking people for no reason.


Go try to whiteknight someone who isn't an asshole. Your friend is a dickwad.

Photographer did nothing wrong whatsoever. Photographers can charge for their services if they feel like it. And even if they couldn't, sending photographers messages calling them names and accusing them of ripping people off etc is just unprofessional and juvenile.

It's unfortunate that some people in this thread feel they have to say "Oh sure, the photographer was in the wrong too" in effort to seem even-handed. He didn't do shit other than diligently stand up to some twat trying to bully people into changing what they do at a con. Which the photographer did quite effectively.

Fuck colossalcon and fuck their asshole staff.

>>6800439
dude you are a fucking cunt. dont hate on her cosplay. go suck start a glock you asshat

>>6802583
The photographer never asked for a press pass, dumbfuck. If this con has a problem not knowing how to administer press badges that's their problem.

>this thread

>>6802583
the only con I've ever seen with any sort of hoop is SDCC and that's because they get a shitload of people trying to get in because of its popularity. They are more or less trying to only get coverage from outlets that are "big" enough.

AX, Fanime, etc are all easy as fuck to get into for press. And yes, I do actually use the badge for press purposes.

I just noticed the
>Any general tips for paid cosplay photoshoots?
part.

Fuck that, we got drama to post about instead.

4ng13 is a belligerent asshole. News at 11.

I should get a shirt that says "ask me about my free photoshoots"

or just go full frugal mode and make a cardboard sign like the "free hugs" people

>>6800488
Uh nope. It depends on the con but for most cons you also pay for your badge. The few cons I know that only require artists to pay for their tables have been comic conventions (which charge higher rates for tables anyway so it ends up being around the same cost).

Also your argument that it's cheaper to sell things at a con because artists make the money back can be applied to photogs who get free press passes and make a profit by doing paid photoshoots

>>6799069
Photographer here, charging people at cons is 100% bullshit. You use cons to convince people to get paid shoots from you, asking for money on the spot is bullshit.

>>6802583
The funny thing about your comment is that the circulation of cosplay photos showing the calibur of cosplay and photography available at a con is far more relevant to convincing cosplayers and sometimes also other attendees to attend a con than "press reports" about the cons are.

There are people who may decide to attend a con based on a report, don't get me wrong, but they are both valuable tools in attracting attendees.

So your argument about the use of a press pass doesn't hold.

>>6799217
This is far worse. Fuck your friend for wasting the cosplayer's time, especially under the guise of a "free" shoot. At least the photog who demands up front is honest.

>>6799217
I don't do a lot of cosplay but I play a fairly well photographed sport and there's a couple photographers that do this, and I fucking hate it. It's like, I'm in the damn pictures, I don't feel like I should have to pay! But at the same time that's (in my opinion, at least, it's well known for being kind of showy at time) not a setting where you're being there to show off how you look. But I just want the damn photos of myself that they took and I don't want to have to pay money.

>>6802736
If you aren't getting money for your photos, you aren't a professional photographer.

I really wish people would stop trying to insta-win arguments by pretending to be experts on topics.

>>6802598
>Um... it ISN"T against con policy.
Except it is. He might be stern, but he doesn't fucking make up rules.

The convention didn't have anything in writing on their site about that rule at the time, but it's not like this response is coming from some low-ranking newb staffer or a regular attendee- it's coming from the head of not one, but 2 departments.

If it wasn't against the rules, I'm pretty sure he would have been kicked off staff by now and the official responses posted around con pages wouldn't be reiterating what he was telling that guy.

>The photographer did absolutely NOTHING wrong at all.
Hahahaha are you serious? Pestering a staff member after you've been given a pretty clear "NO" is "doing nothing wrong"?
>laughing girls.jpg

At least think before you spew butthurt.

>>6803165
Hello, Mr. Colossalcon head of press.

>>6803165
>The convention didn't have anything in writing on their site about that rule at the time, but it's not like this response is coming from some low-ranking newb staffer or a regular attendee- it's coming from the head of not one, but 2 departments.

The put it in writing. At least this guy was nice enough to ask for permission beforehand. What if he didn't and just started charging for shots? The con would be fucked as they can not point at anything in their policy that prohibits charging for pictures

Okay two cents time, haven't done this in awhile. I spoke a friend about this before posting. Photographers, I love you guys and you are one of the life blood of conventions. If you want to charge, instead of charging ask for donations. There are those who will definitely donate to you for your hard work and dedication. I live in the southwest and I know a Photographer that charges for prints, but he also is the convention photographer. He posts the pictures regardless, but also offers prints and charges for them printing them out on the spot, the prices are fair and if I cosplayed more I would purchase prints from him.

TL;DR: Try taking donations.

I met 4ng31 before. he's a total asshole.

Cosplay Photography -
As a costumer, let me tell you how *I* look at getting pictures taken/seeking a photographer out at conventions:

- You don't pay me, I don't pay you. You spend lots of money on your equipment, I spend lots of money on making my costumes.
- You credit me, I credit you.
- You ask to shoot me, I don't pay you. You came to me.
- You want to take my picture on a convention floor, I don't pay you.
- One edited image for a decent chunk of money? No. I'd rather pay my hotel parking fee.
- You want to take my picture, sell it as prints, and I don't even get as much as a copy or credit? No.
- You got a booth and ask for money? You won't see me at it.
- Us leaving the convention floor to take photos means you're taking time away from me from being on the convention floor and experiencing the convention I paid money for a badge for. This is absolutely fine, but, understand, I'm not paying you. I don't just go to conventions so I can prance around in a costume and hunt for photographers to take my picture. I actually shop, get autographs, meet up with people, shop, host and do things at events. Did I mention shop?

There have also been wonderful opportunities (not required etiquette) where a photographer will even let me sell prints of said photos we did at a convention and not even want any percentage of sales. That's great and very thoughtful and I appreciate that so much.

Typically, I look at convention shoots/convention floor photos as "TFP" - Time for Photos. You take up my time, I get some photos. The end.

>>6803349
>Typically, I look at convention shoots/convention floor photos as "TFP" - Time for Photos. You take up my time, I get some photos. The end.

Then that means the photographer has all the rights to all of your pictures too. You know that, right? A lot of cosplayers don't like that.

>>6803165
It isn't against the rules. There is no rule that says photographers cant charge for photographs. Trying to say "this guy is a hotshot he knows whats up" means nothing because a) he isn't in charge of anything concerning convention policy and 2) he didn't even say it was against the rules, just that he wants it to be. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

Please, if you're going to argue in this thread at least get a clue.

And if you are the asshole volunteer in question, try getting a new personality. The one you have now sucks.

>>6803330
Yep. Terrible personality. Also has delusions of grandeur, despite being ugly as fuck.

>>6803248
No professional photographer with any sense of pride is going to work for "donations". We are talking about skilled professionals, not street performers.

>>6803428
I understand where you're coming from, but from the way it sounded in OP pic. He was still training. If you're training you're not a professional.

>>6800439
This

>>6801479
This

The photog guy is a snitch who's acting entitled and shouldn't be 'earning a living' off taking photos at cons, especially considering he's practicing. I mean its one thing to be angry with someone, but to come out of the situation showing off how wrong the staffer was, but connecting an entitled nature to it... stupid.

The staffer is the head of a department and needs little bit more tact when they do so because they are representing the con.

On the topic of charging for photoshoots. If you don't like it, don't pay someone. If you don't like newbies paying for shoots, then you go take their free shoots. If you don't want to, then stfu and gtfo

Isn't a practising photographer the same as a practising doctor in that he's performing his work..?

>>6803863
>The photog guy is a snitch who's acting entitled and shouldn't be 'earning a living' off taking photos at cons
Every person is "entitled" to make a living however they desire. We don't live in the soviet union where people tell us where or how we get to work. You don't get to tell a person how they "should" be earning a living.

Please stop acting like the photographer is committing some kind of crime or somehow acting like a baby because he isn't giving in to some asshole's belittlement.

>>6799069
I love how the idiot volunteer thinks you have to buy permits to take pictures at a convention.

>>6803968
Depending on the city and location you are photographing in, you do.
For example- taking for profit photos inside the convention property is fine (with permission) unless the building has permit rules. As soon as you walk off that property, you need permits. I live in L.A, so it's a bit more strict here than other places, but I see photographers and budget film crews get stopped all the time.

>>6803863

> Snitch
> Butthurt that the "omg so secret" message got posted

Hi Chris