Recently, there has been some discussion in North America on whether it is feasible (indeed, appropriate) to eliminate tipping at restaurants and other service-type businesses. This custom is much less common in the rest of the world. In Japan, for example, it borders on offensive to offer a tip or to negotiate the price of a service or a product. It is assumed that the providers of services are already doing their best, so offering additional pay for better quality is inappropriate.
This brings up an important fundamental question about quality in professional photography, which in many cases constitutes a service-type business. If you are doing a high-volume project where financial compensation per image is not high, is it appropriate to lower the quality of your work?
Perhaps, the answer depends on the definition of quality. Incidentally, I found one of the best explorations into the subject of quality in Robert Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance“. It is tempting to say: “Of course, compromising quality is never Ok. It is a staple of professionalism.” Realistically though, something has to be sacrificed in high-volume/low-cost shoots, like run-of-the-mill school portraits. I think that it is creativity that suffers, which allows technical quality of the photos to be maintained. After all, it is impossible to establish effective communication with the subjects, to experiment with various poses, lighting arrangements and camera settings, when many images need to be taken in a limited time.
On the other hand, it can be argued that creative content is an integral, if not the fundamental, part of quality. If this is the case, and if we agree that quality cannot be compromised, then the logical conclusion is that high-volume/low-cost projects should never be undertaken. If the volume of work is high, the price has to be high too.
Related
