Is Age of Professional Photographer Over?

[bajasurf]

Posted on Kirk Tuck website:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-age-of-professional-photographer.html

 

[LR Max]

Considering I still get phone calls and get paid...no.

 

[Lost Canadian]

A "professional photographer" is simply someone who generates a majority of their income from photography alone, and there are still a lot of crap "pros" out there. I do think it's becoming harder to make a living from it though as the talent pool has grown exponentially since the advent of digital opened the doors to so many people who simply couldn't afford it in the past. You can still make a living from photography,... if you're good enough, you have the drive, and are somewhat business savvy. Competition is extremely stiiiiffff though! Just in my little town alone there are countless really good photographers, like J.R. for instance, awesome guy, ridiculously good photographer. His stuff. That's the kind of talent people compete with daily for their income, to make it financially as a straight photog any more you have to really know your stuff, but it can be done.

 

[jeffryscott]

There will always be professional photographers, how many and how lucrative the field will be is the challenge. The blogger makes many good points, and accurate from my perspective. I recently left the business after 25 years in editorial work (newspapers, magazines, etc.). I went into healthcare as I saw newspapers shrinking, did so just in time as the paper I had spent 15 years with went through three rounds of layoffs, the last one gutting the remaing photo staff by half.

Some can and do make very good livings still, but talent alone doesn't cut it. Business skill is as much or more important than talent.

In my years in the business I saw day rates for magazines and newspapers like Time, Newsweek, NY Times go down, camera prices go up while serviceable life of a DSLR goes down (how many pros are still shooting with a first or second generation digital?) and photo agencies have dismantled. Editors who once worked through agencies to find either photographers or photographs use the web to find both.

With the advent of autofocus and digital, amateurs are getting better exposed, better focused photos. Are they good? Not always, but for many editors and art directors they are "good enough." When a professional wants $250 for a photo and an amateur is happy with a byline or $20, "good enough" is often just that.

I, and many friends in the business,have experienced this. It is hard to make a living like this.

That all said, if one has the right personality, the right business sense and the desire there are opportunities, but they are shrinking. It has always been a tough field, it is just a whole lot tougher now. This is all from an editorial photogs experience. Wedding, corporate and portrait type photographers would have different perspectives.

 

[ywen]

photography as a skill set is not very difficult. It is very difficult to maintain as a business. That latter point effectively filters out many people who would otherwise be able to sustain as professional photographers. So in reality, the status of professional photographer is still limited to a smaller number of people.

 

[goodtimes]

photography as a skill set is not very difficult.

I disagree. It is not difficult to get a properly exposed & focused photograph - digital has made that part easy. Inexpensive software packages have made it easy & affordable for the casual user to *enhance* their own photos to bring out the colors, touch up blemishes, remove red eyes, etc - making just about anyone with a point and shoot a *decent* photographer (all for a $120 investment).

What all that hasn't done, is make it easy to capture the feelings, emotions, & perspective that a skilled photographer can provide. Sure, it comes easy for a few people - but calculus and differential equations comes easy for some people too. Those few people, the professionals, will always stand out.

The rest of us, even those of us who sell photos here and there (I've sold a few dozen), can't really put ourselves on the same level as those people. I can produce a technically correct photograph with ease - but you put my photograph (or almost any 'hobbyist's photo) next to a true professionals photograph of the same subject, shot under the same conditions, and they're worlds apart.

 

[ywen]

well it's all relative I guess... compared to shoveling, photography is a lot more difficult. Compared to natural media art, or music, photography is much easier to reach a comparable skill level. That's why you have sooooo many self-taught, former hobbyist wedding photographers quickly building up their business and taking a huge chunk from the establishment. In fact, many segment of the photography business is more about personality, networking, opportunity, than absolute skill level (in that order). What skill level that is lacking, can in most cases be easily learned from observation and some practice. Of course, if someone totally lacks any sort of artistic vision, then creating something that looks nice with a camera will be very difficult.

There will always be the small minority of stand-outs that are absolutely unique in their artistic styles and vision. To achieve that level of greatness require natural abilities in the visual arts.

 

[Photomike]

I think the problem that we have is the word 'professional" has been cheapened by the digital revolution more so than other advancements over the years like better film and equipment before digital. Sure there are many people that take some great pictures (I have seen some amazing pictures taken with little point and shoot cameras that I know I would have had a hard time capturing with my experience and equipment), and they call themselves professionals because of these fluke pictures and charge ridiculously low prices because they are happy with some extra money. This is causing a lot of issues in the photography world as customers have no idea what a professional is and what one isn't, what is a good price and what is too low or too high. These part timers are lowering prices to the point of not being sustainable (they look at it as sure I will do your full day wedding for $200.00 - with my full time job it would take me a couple days to bring that home), but they are not taking into account what the actual costs are for a job (equipment purchase, equipment replacement, specialized equipment, editing time, prep time, office/ studio rent, etc.). Then many of the part timers are burning out and leaving customers without a photographer or leaving them with garbage pictures. Then this is coming around to hurt those that are in it full time, a wedding a week at $200.00 does not pay a lot of bills or does it cover wages for a full timer. This is then driving those out of the industry that have been in it for years. Honestly if it ever comes down to worrying about making enough money I would rather work at a mindless job that pays my personal bills than to worry day in, day out about making enough at the studio to keep the doors open.

The other thing that is happening is that many of the photographers today have taken some good (or even GREAT) pictures in the past, but they are not able to repeat this on a regular basis as they do not have the training or experience. They book/ sell themselves on some past work (some, if not all done by accident on Auto mode) but the actual stuff that they produce is far below this level, or it is up and down in quality, as they just do not have the understanding of photography to be able to produce a consistent product. Again this is effecting everyone as the customer does not know what to expect, I thought my photographer was a "professional" because their worked looked so good. Most times it is because photographers are relying on the camera to do the work and if it doesn't do it then they are up the creek, but the customer doesn't know this and they leave with a bad taste about photography in general, many times blaming the "professional". This again is driving the industry down as customers give up on photography, the "professional" looses more clients because of this and the circle continues.

 

[Lost Canadian]

well it's all relative I guess... compared to shoveling, photography is a lot more difficult. Compared to natural media art, or music, photography is much easier to reach a comparable skill.

I had an easier time learning how to play the guitar than I did learning how to use my camera, lol.

I agree, in most respects, with both you guys. You absolutly need a strong business sense to make it as a pro anymore, without it, all the talent and skill in the world won't make you successful,, at least financially. The artistic side of things still requires boatloads of effort though, and is anything but easy. I myself have been at this photography thing relentlessly for 4 years now, and I still become very much frustrated with my own work and abilities. Easy it has not been, if it were though I probably wouldn't do it.

 

[ywen]

well what I mean is.. after only 4 years of effort, you're good enough to warrant some decent commissions, if the opportunity is there... I'm sure you can pick out some images from your collection that would not be out of place in Nat Geo or other magazines. Is your guitar skill good enough to sell records? The differential between you and most pros isn't that great to warrant them getting the gig every single time rather than you. So in that perspective, yeah photography is easy to get into compare to most other forms of art

 

[Scott Brady]

I work with a lot of exceptional photographers. They are all better at their craft than I am - for the most part, I am a hack.

Yet I bill an order of magnitude more than most of them, principally to corporate clients. The notable difference is that I go to unique places, the images are unique, they are rare. I also have a reasonable command of business and marketing.

I have a good friend that is a serious pro, one of Canon's sponsored pros. He does very well, but that is because he is equal parts talented and also a savvy business man that understands communication, relationships, service, exceeding expectations, etc.

So I believe that being a professional photographer as a career is still possible, but it demands a strong foundation in business and marketing. . . IMHO

 

[taco2go]

Ywen and Scott make great points.

The fundamental question (not surprisingly) is: "why am I taking pictures ?" if the answer is "to sell"- get ready to seriously learn some non-picture-taking skills.

 

[haven]

"...easy to get into compare to most other forms of art."

Can photography be art? Sure, in the rare case, just like making shoes can be an art form. The vast majority of pro photographers are artisans who use their tools to create a salable product.

 

[syke]

Ywen and Scott make great points.

The fundamental question (not surprisingly) is: "why am I taking pictures ?" if the answer is "to sell"- get ready to seriously learn some non-picture-taking skills.

That pretty much summed it up.
Being a Professional Photographer really has little to do with taking pictures.

 

[ywen]

"...easy to get into compare to most other forms of art."

Can photography be art? Sure, in the rare case, just like making shoes can be an art form. The vast majority of pro photographers are artisans who use their tools to create a salable product.

My definition of art is any object where the appeal is purely visual and serving no other specific purpose that is not based on the visual appeal of the same. A Picasso masterpiece and an HDR pic of a dog that only the author likes, are both art to certain individuals in that narrow definition.