SAT0725

I don't really use them but often I think it'd be nice to have them to get the "boring" shots I really need. Like when doing event photography I know I need to get some shots of the sponsor tables. It'd be nice just to have someone cover those required shots so I can focus on getting the more candid real moments.

Photography is cheap. Everyone has a camera.

Photographers don't like to hear this -- and I say this as a photographer -- but most people are OK with reasonably shitty photos. They don't care if you want to spend an hour touching something up then charge them for it. They'd rather have something poorly framed and overexposed shot on a smartphone and get it free.

I'm lucky in that 99% of what I shoot is part of my day job, so I get paid regardless. But if people ask me for photos that I've taken at work or incidentally during a work shoot I just send them jpgs free. There are a lot of photographers like me who do that, too, which probably also hurts the market for people asking money for photos.

One recent example is I was shooting portraits for a marketing initiative at work and a passing student asked if I'd shoot his headshot for a resume or something. I had all the gear set up so I said sure. It took like 10 minutes later to edit and send him the photo, so it didn't matter much to me. But some people try to charge guys like $100 for that simple task, which is silly.

How much the poorer would we be in history and in art?

This. And also we'd have no free press.

it would make angry

But it would still be legal. As a general rule, you shouldn't do anything in public you don't want people to see or photograph you doing in public.

Personally I would be pretty upset if I came across a photo of myself online I never realized was taken

In public? Why? You shouldn't be able to tell people they can't use their camera because you just happen to be walking in front of them. You don't own the air around your body or another person's field of view.

and they're just trying to live their life

Some of the greatest photographs of all time are candids of people just trying to live their life. That's the whole point of documentary photography. If you ask first you're killing the moment and the whole point of the practice.

Do newspaper photographers ask every person they photograph before they click the shutter? How would that even work? You literally couldn't cover the news with a camera if you had to ask subjects first because everyone who didn't want to be in the news -- criminals, politicians, etc. -- would just refuse consent.

"Well my frend mentioned today it was super creepy and run as I didn't have their consent."

Your friend's view is subjective. Some of the best photos in history and most important were all taken as candids technically without consent.

Your friend doesn't own your field of view; if they're in public you can take and post their photo. Imagine the ego of someone thinking they own the cityscape just because they're standing or walking in it lol.

If you track your shoots over time you'll find you probably actually shoot way less than you think. I had similar worries as you when we bought our first camera and yes, there are shoots where I near 2,000 shots in a couple hours, but those are rarer than they feel. I think we just crossed 200,000 with that camera and I think it's been maybe eight years or so now. That said, we do have two main bodies, so it helps that we're spreading the shots.

70-200 2.8 but I do like to John Wick with a 17-35 and get all up in people's business

It's not hard to get your picture in the newspaper. No one who matters really cares.

They're not OP's photos anymore; they're the band's. The band can complain to the paper, but OP can't.