I couldn't agree more with Bland. I make enough of a living, but it's only because I spend a huge portion of my time tracking down opportunities.

Crappy amateurs are killing the wedding and event photography side of my business but my product work is growing every year enough to offset what I have lost from the downturn in economy and subsequent loss of wedding photography business.

I agree completely with you Mike, well said!

Also, for those of you who say you can't make a living at it, I must disagree. There's plenty of opportunities for self employment taking pictures but it isn't going to come to you, you have to go after it. There was a time when one didn't have to market themselves much to get business, now it's just as important in how hard you market yourself as it is taking the pictures.

Godless said:
Two words for those whining professionals. Medium format.

That is an area where amateurs cannot compete in for at least a decade to come.

Go Hasselblad or PhaseOne or whatever and continue your careers. Sure, it is a huge investment in gear. But can you call yourself a pro if you are not making enough dough to cover up for it in a few years? Perhaps another career would suit you better.

Hi,

I don't agree. Buying equipment to make one a professional doesn't make much sense. It's not what's in your hands, but rather what's in your head that counts.

If your logic were true, anyone could just buy into any craft (and many have tried and failed).

Better to invest in one's training and education in the craft, but rather in just the craft of shooting, all aspects to include the digital darkroom, too.

I would certainly consider pointing to those skills.

My best,

Mike

Two words for those whining professionals. Medium format.

That is an area where amateurs cannot compete in for at least a decade to come.

Go Hasselblad or PhaseOne or whatever and continue your careers. Sure, it is a huge investment in gear. But can you call yourself a pro if you are not making enough dough to cover up for it in a few years? Perhaps another career would suit you better.

Hi all,

Interesting thread, and I agree that 'digital' has changed things, but I quite agree with aslightdelay, in my fifty years at this, I remember that auto focus and auto exposure was a big change, too (although, admittedly not as revolutionary - but at the time if you used either you were considered a wussy).

It seems to me that the well rounded photographer just has a bigger range of tools to master in order deliver great images, certainly increase one's dimension as an artist.

The darkroom has gone digital.

Quite frankly, my first jobs in photography were in darkroom work. If it wasn't for that background I wouldn't be the shooter I am (for good or bad).

The same is true for anyone wanting to shoot well today. Learning the electronic tools in image processing go hand-in-hand with shooting skills.

Good work always finds a way to success.

My best,

Mike

This thread was interesting when it popped up a year ago and now it's even more so to me. I went to South America last year (there's a whole post on the Galapagos where the forum offered camera/lens advice) and brought back quite a few images. I work in advertising/marketing (as a writer, not a photographer or designer) and one of my agency friends offered to buy 2 of my shots for use in one of his client's catalogs (a high-end travel company). These were by no means cover shots; in fact they were reproduced at about 2"x3". For the one-time usage I was paid $625 in total. It seemed fair to me (and truth be told, this was a pretty good friend and sometimes client so I wasn't going to negotiate), but I'd like to get the pov of some of you who obviously do this for a living. Good price? Bad price? Am I Uncle Joe/soccer mom? If the situation arises again with a non-friend do I drive a harder bargain? Obviously this isn't going to replace my day job but it's a nice way to justify new gear purchases.
Thoughts?

You might consider photography as being different. I'm a database administrator by proffession. I don't do databases from all vendors but I'm still a DBA.

studio460 said:
Well, at this point, I would be happy just to get a few commercial assignments on the weekends, just to help pay for the gear (and, to be able to buy more gear). A friend of mine shoots headshots for agencies for $500/day--I would be happy to do the same. I admit, I have a pretty good day job, and I'm not likely to leave that anytime soon.

Studio... I'm in the same situation as you regarding having a decent day job, its just that for me 50% of my photo work is related to *THAT* day job!

When I was 40 years old, I never thought that at age 55, I'd be doing this kind of thing... and get paid for it (even if its not $500/day as your friend gets)!

Full salary, benefits, pension etc, means I've got a great gig going on here! Does it make me a "Pro"? I am very unwilling to take on that label as the traditional "Pro" does different kinds of work (formal portraits, hot news etc) than I do (I am very 'event' and feature oriented) and has a different style of operation (from a studio? I work "in the field") to me. I know I am held to the same standards as the other 2 full-timers doing this work too. Perhaps it is just "different"?

spraynpray said:
Studio: in the light of general pro photography apparently being a disappearing profession, maybe you ought to rethink moving heavily into it. Having said that, there does appear to be some guys still making good money in portrait work - for the moment anyway.

Well, at this point, I would be happy just to get a few commercial assignments on the weekends, just to help pay for the gear (and, to be able to buy more gear). A friend of mine shoots headshots for agencies for $500/day--I would be happy to do the same. I admit, I have a pretty good day job, and I'm not likely to leave that anytime soon.

Studio: in the light of general pro photography apparently being a disappearing profession, maybe you ought to rethink moving heavily into it. Having said that, there does appear to be some guys still making good money in portrait work - for the moment anyway.

I often talk to the guys who shoot for WireImage (now owned by Getty Images) since we often work the same events. Since I'm entertaining the possibility of transitioning to stills for a living someday, I asked them about any possible opportunities they could throw my way. All agreed that the rates have dropped, and the market has become very diluted. Since about 2000, everyone has switched to DSLRs, and the technical barriers to entry have been lowered since the film days. When I used to hire photographers for corporate work in the early 1990s, I used to pay between $800-$1,200/day for both medium-format and 4x5 work. I was also talking to a major-studio unit photographer the other day, thinking he made about the same early-90s rate I was familiar with, and he said, "No, it's way less."

Welcome to the forum flyguy and nice post...

Lots of good points to respond to, but I'll be selective. Undoubtedly it's competition that is challanging the professional photographers of today and also of course the amateur enthusiast. With the sheer volume of photographs being created on everything from professional camera equipment to mobilephones, the standard of available images whether it be mass market stock photo's or family albums has increased dramatically just by the power of being able to simply delete and re-shoot on the spot (mostly). But fear not, the laws of supply and demand still apply; as the average quality of available images has increased so in turn demand for exceptional images outstrips supply - Couples who want to impress their freinds with the quailty of their wedding album, or marketers who want to impress their client base with the uniqueness of their product will need better than average images to achive that and thus better than average photographers to fill that demand - Yes the knowledge gap and technology gap that pro's of a decade ago had over amateurs has been closed a fair way, but there's still a gap in skill and creativity that pro's can maximise and consumers will seek. The implication of course is that if you were never a great pro and your only real value was the camera equipment you commanded then the new equlibrium will be a big challange, but if you have more to offer........

Having said that, many professions have become more competative, cosolidated and even become obsolete through-out history and whilst generally better for society as a whole it does suck for those that invested a life of time and money to build up their career/job in that field; so posters, give these guys & gals a break, they're allowed to reminisce and have a moan that they are being priced out of the market, because they have a lot to lose, of course it won't make it a blind bit of difference to the market, but if it helps some people let off steam then it's the least we can do.

I only play on the fringes, but I talk with a few people.

TaoTeJared has hit a major nail on the head. Digital transmission of images has changed the game.

Microstock was blasted to a new level thanks to the Internet. It always existed, but who can resist having an infinite searchable library on tap at the touch of a button, rather than a shelf full of books with ageing shots, or messing around with couriers?

One photographer covering an event can now get the pictures to many clients; even make the prints in the back of the event van as people have the taste of the event in their mouths.

But the customers that I talk with, do recognise the difference between a decent photo and Uncle Joe. They just haven't got the cash to splash. Sales of my event work are really down, not covering the CODB. I can't use a flash to cover sporting events but the parents are in the audience, flashing away. As for my art photography ... that is so swamped by a mass of work that no one sees my stuff; so just like any other artist, no one would buy my work until I'd been on TV as a mass murderer or politician (is there a difference?)

The technology has come on apace for Uncle Joe; cameras that handle the technological aspect of taking the photograph ... opening photography to all those people who have a good artistic eye, but no photographic technical expertise. A colleague with no photographic knowledge came in with a Canon G12 and on the back was a shot I was envious of; well composed, good angle, natural lighting to die for, it was a very nice picture.

Add to that, the process of teaching photography has changed. Uncle Joe now has magazines aplenty regurgitating the mechanisms of photography. Late 2010 actually saw the introduction of a brand new photography magazine, "Digital Photography Enthusiast," so rather than dying, the photography demographic is changing. We've recently seen IQ launched in the UK; a new newspaper. Print is far from dead; it is undergoing a revolution to be smaller, more relevant and punchy.

In all this, the Joe McNallys, Chase Jarvis' of this world aren't suffering. They're booming. Imaging has increased and is more important than ever in advertising campaigns. But I suspect that there are a lot more people who are ready to fill McNallys shoes these days, than there were when McNally was a shoe-filler.

In I.T., my wages these days aren't what they were. We now have so many programmers and technicians that the market is flooded. If I wanted to be in a game that earned money, I'd re-train as a plumber; but I like computing so I'm staying here.

Ken Dodd was musing on TV how, in the old days, he would set up a show in London and people would come from all over the country to see him. He would be in the same location for the whole season. Now, he has to travel to the various locations and take his show with him; despite having greater and better personal travel options than ever before, people can't be bothered to come to his shows. Societies expectations have changed dramatically.

For that reason, it piqued my interest when McNally and Hobby took the Flash Bus on tour.

I looked at becoming a professional photographer when IT was looking sour. I concluded that setting up a shop in the area was going to be no good. There was a lot of competition, peoples pockets aren't that deep and societies value of needing a photo seems to have gone. People don't seem to have the same need for a formal family picture any more; at least in the UK. The older generation seem to cherish nice formal pictures of family; but not the younger generation.

My mentors photography studio was so little used that he ended up renting it out as a music studio; and that was a decade ago. Apparently isn't that much money in music studios any more, either, thanks to the digital quality of home recordings.

If I was going to make it in photography, I'd need to take myself on the road; do what Jarvis and Ken Dodd do and get mobile. Personally, I don't have the finance necessary to make that sort of job possible; to underwrite the first few jobs until the money starts flowing in.

Opening up shop and expecting the work to come to us is not going to cut it. People expect us to go to them and put more effort in to the job. Somewhat ironic given our age of communication, but there you go.

For me, the NY Times article is short on figures. How many photographers have entered the market to make professional photography unsustainable? There are ELEVEN actual trading general photographers listed within four miles of my position ... and I live in the country side. If I switch to industrial photography, there is one in that range. To me, that is the factor that makes the most sense in professional photography being unprofitable ... competition.

I'm wondering to what extent there are just too many pro photographers and with the global belt tightening that's going on the supply/demand is way out of wack.

I work in a Fortune 500 in marketting. We use stock photos generated by Pros, Pros to take pictures of our products, and Pros to cover corporate events. Joe Amateur probably is lurking somewhere but I find it hard to believe someone doing business would wilfully hire amateurs.

I would expect amatuer photography plays a bigger role in the consumer's expectations. If you can print to costco for a few cents a page and get a high quality enlargement through the internet for a few dollars, you may not be willing to pay the kind of charges photographers historically charged. If the customer really believes they are getting art, then the copyright makes sense. If they see it as a service any other pro could do, they will insist on a better pricing.

I'm only talking about "events" so don't throw the rocks too hard. lol

If a band hires a photographer to shoot them at a concert, they'll be paid. If an organizer hires a photographer to shoot their event, they'll be paid. So I see no issues with people shooting pictures at events and doing with them as they please, because it won't effect the "requested" photographers paycheck.

Where the problem comes is when a photographer shows up at an event for the intent of making money "after the fact", and to them I say "Tuff Stuff"! In 6 years of shooting events weekly I have failed to see one of these photographers provide any quality pictures what so ever. They show up with $10,000 worth of gear strapped to them, dump their pictures on their website unedited in hopes they'll find some sucker to buy their ill efforts. I'm not saying there aren't quality photographers that make money this way, just saying I haven't crossed paths with them.

Digital brings an entirely new era to events as everyone has a camera and they share their pictures at will, Facebook being the most popular method. So the need for an "after the fact" photographer who charges is null and void.

Here's how I do it, I don't charge money but what I get in return is 10 fold in perks. Not one time has any professional photographer being paid to shoot an event by the responsible party has ever had issues with me and we share our respect equally between us. Can't say the same for the "after the fact" pro photographers, them folks have ropes strung up all over the state of Oklahoma just for me and I'm lov'in it! lol

+1 TaoTeJared

I agree with the whole post and am in the same boat. I have a full time job but do and have always loved taking photos/portraits. If someone wants me to shoot a wedding and has seen my prior work at weddings then that means what I shoot is good enough for them money aside. If im doing portraits for someone that means that they like my "look" or price but prob both. I dont see that as a bad thing.

I do see how people wanting $7000 for a wedding would have a hard time explaining that to some of the people I have worked with. Im not saying its wrong to charge that much, if your getting the clients and charge that much bravo, your work must speak for itself. But if someone is not getting that much for a wedding and then blaming people who charge less then maybe they should look at their work not the other persons.

I do see how mom and uncle joe with a d40 sellign microstock would hurt those that do this for a living but on the same hand if their work was that much better then theirs would have sold.

after reading this it seem negative. Im just trying to say that people should adapt to "their" market for "their" work. Not always find someone else to blame. Sometimes prices go down thats true with many art forms.

~Cheers to all those out there trying though. Im always looking up to those that are better.

Reading the article from last year all I kept thinking was "Awww you can't specialize any more and you may have to do something or learn something new - awww poor baby!"

What I read is:
1) Photographers once had a pseudo-monopoly due to their proximity to their clients.
2) Available clients to a photographer are no longer are limited due to their proximity.
Personally I think the positive of the latter should excite people more than loosing their proximity monopoly should scare them.

I know there are a lot of people like me on here who love to take photographs, sometimes make some money, and have the normal day job. The amount of times I have had to reinvent myself, learn new jobs, new skills and switch professions in the last 10 years I can't count on all my fingers and toes.

It sounds like some photographers need to re-think their perceptions of what a "pro photographer" is, what they can do, and where they can operate. To me it just looks like those who have changed are kicking the pants off of those who have not or refuse to.

The side money I make, are from people who want some decent photos more frequently, but would NOT go to a pro if I wasn't there. I have a lot of friends who look at the wedding pictures from "uncle Joe" took, and run to a pro faster than you can blink. Is that much different than what it has been in the last 25 years?

I am practical. People come to me with broken stuff - cars, motorbikes, electronics, furniture, anything to do with houses (just this evening someboday asked me to make a set of handles for some precious saucepans!) I am lucky enough to be able to fix or make most things, and I don't trust most pro's to do any of the things I do (with the exception of photography) as well as I do.

Just think of all the pro's that I have taken work off! Where are you going with this thread?

Re-reading this thread, something occurs to me that gets to a point that Poster made earlier. A lot of the discussion up to this point has centered around digital somehow stealing the thunder of traditional professional photographers, but it overlooks something: this is not the first time we've been here.

First, consider painting, especially portraiture. Think of all the artists -- David, Rembrandt, Goya and others -- who made their names, and a very good living, on figurative painting. Photography could very easily have signaled a death knell for painting (Picasso, famously, was supposed to have said, "I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. There is nothing else to learn."), but painters adapted and responded in a myriad of ways, from photorealism to Pop Art to various forms of abstraction. While it may not have the same pride of place that it did even a century ago, only a fool would write it off as a dead art form, or somehow say that there's no way one could make a living at it with all these photographers around. And the painter faces other problems and forms of competition, from hacks like Thomas Kinkaid, to crappy amateurs who'll shill their inferior stuff at a fraction of the cost of a good painting because to some people -- consumers rather than connoisseurs -- it's "good enough."

Then, too, let's look at something that's more apples to apples. This isn't even the first time we've been here as regards photography. In its earliest days -- I'm talking the time of Calotypes, Daguerrotypes, and other formats that required the photographer to be equal parts artist and scientist -- the photographer shared more in common with the painter than he or she does now. It was a field that, because of the expense in terms of time, expertise, and equipment, was far more rarefied. But if we fast-forward a couple of decades to the introduction of the early Kodak and Leica cameras, I'm sure that a number of older photographers were having conversations very similar to this one. After all, you no longer had to be any kind of expert to take photos; anybody who could afford a Brownie and some postage could now take photos of whatever they damn well pleased, and I'm sure that even then, somebody's uncle was taking business from the photo studio in town, happy to get a couple of bucks for the privilege.

And it's not as though the "problem" stopped with the Brownie. Think of all the innovations that have made photography a progressively more democratic medium: photo labs, Photoshop, autofocus, automatic metering, zoom lenses... Because more people can use something doesn't mean they're all doing it with the same level of skill or finesse, unless you think you're going to convince me that a paint-by-numbers velvet Elvis is on the same level with the Mona Lisa (and trust me, you won't).

My point is that this is hardly the first time that this has happened. And each time, it's been a good thing, no matter how often, or loudly, some people have complained. Because for each person who complains, someone else will see, and seize, the opportunity that's presented to them. Bottom line: you can piss and moan, or you can stop taking your medium for granted and adapt. Sure, for some people -- the consumers -- Uncle Joe and his Casio point-and-shoot are just fine. But for others, creativity and quality will out.

Here endeth the rant. :)

I feel like there is still plenty of market share for professionals. There might have been a shift in what types of pictures those professionals are taking, but there is still a need. People pictures are still popular it seems...and people are willing to pay for those. Event photos seems like another one...even because a pro might get access to places or events that Joe Nobody wouldn't.

There are still those shots that people can't get without pro level equipment. As much as I like to think my Bald Eagle flying is a great picture, I don't think the picture would stand against someone who took a similar picture with one of the super telephoto primes and a pro body that I can't afford. It also depends on the consumer and what they will settle for. I don't think many would settle for a pixeladed blowup of a cropped image because you didn't have a long enough lens to reach the bird or whatever. If it is your job you might also have the time to wait for the right moment to capture that picture or travel to somewhere that other people can't. I think there are lots of advantages to a pro photo career that overtake a Joe Nobody like myself. I often don't have the time to go to a certain place and wait around all day or whatever because I have my actual job for my income.

/shrug...others might have different opinions though.

I also found this very interesting. First, I'm sure a year later it's only gotten worse, as Cousin Joe has now invested in better equipment and — given the adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day — is getting off a decent shot now and then. And since he's not making a living selling his images, any money he gets is gravy. Of course he's going to undercut you. Second, this trend is not isolated to photography. I'm a writer, and theoretically anyone with a pencil and paper can physically do what I do, and often tries. If you're a textile manufacturer you're seeing the same thing — only in this case cousin Joe is a woman working in Malaysia for $1 a day.
I guess the key is to specialize. Find a niche to be good at that others can't emulate, regardless of what they buy. That's not to say that the market isn't contracting; it is for virtually all professions. It's about creating your own market. It brings to mind a line from an early season of Mad Men when a woman was acting as her actor/husband's manager. When asked if she had formal training she replied, "This is America. You imagine a job, then become the person who does that job." (substitute 21st century for America)
Not that this universally applies, but it's something.

I came across this thread while searching for microstock discussions, and after reading it I have to ask:

A year later, how's life in the pro lane?

Is the market better/worse?

Well said Jon! Good luck with the studio work.

Almost all of my local portrait studio's here are now going into the photoshopped glamour or "fantasy" look for their photos. Very few do straight out of the camera portraits. Now they rely on photoshop "trickery" to make themselves stand out from the College kids, Uncle Joe's and soccer moms with the D90s and D3s.

Right now the whole "Narnia", biblical scene, and surreal fantasy photos are pretty popular. Especially with kid and teenager graduation/sports portraits. Nobody really wants just a plain picture but unfortunately they still DO want you to charge them the same plain picture price!

NikoDoby said:
It's not a negative attitude. It's coming to terms that the market is changing. A company doesn't have to hire a photographer pay for his plane ticket, hotel, etc. to do a photo shoot of a flower for their website and annual report.

They don't have to pay the photographer royalty fees to use his photo on more than 500 copies of an annual report. Or pay him extra money to use his image on their website too.

Now they just get a month's subscription to a stock agency pay them $150 USD for a high resolution photo of a flower and that's it. They get unlimited rights to do whatever they want with that photo of a flower. And the amateur mom who took that photo gets paid $15 USD from the Stock agency.

And she's thrilled to make the $15. Poster, I've been a professional since the late '70's. I used to shoot 8x10, 4x5, Hasselblad, and Nikon. I'm no whining beginner. I used to shoot mainly still life with lot's of studio lights, something that no soccer mom that I know of can do. I decided to close down my studio and do mainly available light location work. Now I'm thinking of going back in that direction(studio still life/people) since I won't be competing with the soccer moms. I wound up taking a 15 yr. hiatus in '92 to be a "Mr. Mom". Everyone was still shooting film when I left. Since I decided to come back, I've spent the last 2 yrs. teaching myself digital, Photoshop, and the business of photography as it now is in the digital age. Take a look at my website, there are shots there from 1972 to last month. I've decided to add a somewhat "illustrative feel" to my work, so it stands apart from what the soccer moms produce. I don't sit around whining, and I do try to keep up with the latest. I'm now connecting to art directors around the world through things such as Linkedin and Facebook and Agency Scoop. I send out monthly emails through Agency Access, I joined ASMP, but facts are facts like NikoDoby said, the cheap stock, the soccer moms, the cousin Joe's, and worse of all the professionals that are grossly undercharging and giving away all of their rights are all killing the industry. I've been making appointments to show my book to the local art directors, and even they are bitching about their clients who have the cousins with a D40. The good art directors want their projects to be "award winners", so they're pissed about the cheap photography that the clients insist on. Don't think that because we complain, we're not looking for solutions...and that's my rant!

Jon