I'm what you call a serious amateur photographer. I make images because I love the process of creating and sharing art. Telling me that I shouldn't ever share my work because it erodes the value of others who have an entirely different motive is borderline price-fixing.
If you, as an established professional, can't compete with hobbyists and newcomers trying to break in, then you might need to find a different business model.
Why is that?
1. The amount of money offered for the author's work
2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model.
Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly.
Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes)
Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.
Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though.
I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear.
* The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...
I wonder how hard it would be to negotiate a deal where the photos are given for free, but with a caption or footnote pointing to the photographer's website. That would make the calendar the best advertisement he has had in years. People are going to be staring at his photos all year long!
That's basically how one of the Creative Commons licenses works. It's a valid choice for photographers, but not the only choice.
And at that time the photographers would properly choose credits over nothing at all.
The way to succeed in the marketplace is to make something distinctive worth paying for, not to lash out at other people who give stuff away for free.
Also, a simple "image credit: Person X" doesn't have to imply that the work was done for free. A potential client doesn't need to know how much previous portfolio pieces cost.
As would all of the newspaper classified ad salespeople, VHS tape manufacturers, blacksmiths, haberdashers, etc.
I see where you're coming from, and it's a valid perspective, although I don't know how realistic it is. All of the attempts to stabilize skills/wages seem to lead to guilds/cartels which keep prices artificially high and harm innovation.
If anything, this economic reality makes the case for a strong social safety net. If someone's livelihood is profoundly disrupted by technology, they should be given a meaningful opportunity to retrain and/or pivot onto something workable without suffering complete and total financial (or physical, in the case of losing one's health care) ruin.
You see I am pissed that I don't have my flying care and robotic servant already. I want progress and will take whatever stability that is necessary to do that.
I just pictured a violent "photographer's guild" gang, riding across the countryside on their penny-farthing bicycles in matching vests and destroying the cameras and/or memory cards of those who would dare try to undercut them.