Posted by Greg Smith on March 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Thanks Zack
Greg
Nevada
Posted by Brian Gatlin on March 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM
I suppose your take on this depends a lot on your desire/need to make money from your photography. I think there are positives and negatives. I think the article goes to the extreme when it cites someone making decent money with a $99 camera.
I think more apt within this forum is the fact that we nature photographers are to some extent a dime a dozen, and there are huge numbers of people doing pro quality work (and I am not placing myself among them--but check these forums--there's plenty of exceptional photographers who aren't making anything off their work). The improvements in digital SLRs, the ability to manipulate and fine tune images digitally, and at least for many of us, our general affluence that allows access to first rate gear, means that the supply of outstanding photos is absolutely going to outstrip the demand. Making it as a pro has as much to do with marketing yourself as it has to do with the quality of your work. (not demeaning the quality of pros in any way, simply saying that great shots no longer sell themselves.)
The many people doing exceptional work do so with many motivations (see the very thoughtful previous posts under the heading, My journey as a Photographer). Some people are pros, and while they're obviously doing it for more than just the money, it's important to them because it's their living. But many others are doing it as a hobby (and what I especially appreciate here, as an art) for their own satisfaction--and these people are probably undercutting the "pros" because they're willing to sell their work relatively cheap because the money is not so important.
Personally, I have a book contract (non-profit, and no royalties paid, produced entirely as part of my regular job), and I'll be submitting 50 photos to go with it. The book is part of my job, but the photos are entirely donated--shot and processed entirely on my own time, and the result of hundreds of hours in the field. I could care less if I get paid for these photos--I take photos for my own pleasure, and am simply excited about the chance to see them in print and the fact that they will add another dimension to my book. It's a great motivator to really learn and do some good work before the deadline arrives. This kind of attitude may not be good for photography as a profession--but is it bad for photography as a pursuit and an art? I don't think so.
I could go on and on in a few more directions, but will allow it to rest and keep thinking about it for a while.
Brian
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 30, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Making a good living in photography has always been tough. Micro-stock, digital photography and the Internet have only made it worse. Now copyright is under attack. Some well-meaning people feel that copyright unfairly benefits a small elite of artists and performers at the expense of the majority and that it is copyright which allows them to do so (do a Google search on "a world without copyright"). Congress has been trying to pass "Orphan Works" legislation for years that would limit copyright and even the current administration is looking into changing copyright law. Unlike prior administrations however the Obama administration is seeking input from creators (in the past only users were asked for input). If you would like your opinion heard, read up on the proposals at http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/ and submit your comments to intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov.
I like my wife's summary of the business of pro photography: It's 5% photography and 95% business.
We've seen an interesting trend in our own business over the last two years, compared to the previous 20 years. The number of clients is down, but individually they're spending more. That's true for all sectors of our business from traditional studio portraiture to industrial photography. Two years ago client #'s were down close to 25%, but total sales were down only 2% from the previous year. Last year client count was still down from two years ago (about 10%, so better than last year), while revenues were our highest ever.
Who knows what this year will hold?
And that's the nature of the business these days. It's really hard to forecast income, so you have to be really conservative and manage every cent that comes through the door. But that's true in boom years, too.
The first thing that was drilled into me as a young assistant was the most difficult part of photography was educating clients. Still holds true today as far as I can see. Over the years I have met some very competent photographers but those with the superior people skills were generally the more successful.
I always find Hank's observations on the business of photography interesting as we share a similar type of market. The largest difference would appear to be the educatability of clients. Here assignment by hindsight is very popular as are contests and 'exhibitions' that are in reality advertising campaigns. One local artist has a sign on his door advising people not to approach him for free work for their cause.
While it may reflect local conditions, and I would be interested in the experience of other markets, the biggest hurdle is that many of those using photography haven't a solid visual background or education. One of my friends, formerly the photo editor of the local paper, can launch into a dissertation at a moments notice about allowing reporters to take pictures. Shooting a building fire at night with a polarizing filter is among his favourites.
In reflecting on the photographers i have met over the years those that had the most stable careers and income were those that taught photography at the post secondary level. But did they have as much fun?
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 31, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Educating clients as to the value of good photography can be hard. If they're rooted in the idea that good enough is good enough, then it can be nearly impossible to tell them why they should pay more for better photography. Over my 20 years in the industry, I have found that it is equally hard, if not impossible to educate some photographers to value their work based on how the photos are going to be used.
Brian is a perfect example when he says he could care less about getting paid for all of the time and effort to produce 50 photos for a book, saying he is happy to donate them simply for the joy of seeing them in print. He could've easily have asked for some money, but for him the value was completely intangible.
When people operate a business simply to help pay for what they do as a hobby, and where the ultimate goal is to "buy a new lens" has led to exactly what the New York Times article points out, namely that competition, devaluation, and lowered goals and expectations have radically changed the marketplace.
Posted by Walter Rowe on April 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM
What I find most interesting about that article is that the NY Times is a major advocate of crowd sourcing for their content. Are they publishing this article to convince people we have to accept this destiny or are they talking out of both sides of their mouth?
I like my wife's summary of the business of pro photography: It's 5% photography and 95% business.
Words to live by.
Posted by John W. Wall on April 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Gary's comments about "good enough" reminded me that I just noticed a full-page ad in Newsweek -- don't recall what it was for -- and I actually stopped to look at the photos in it because I'd had a recent discussion with someone about stock photography and also had read that NYT article. Anyway, the photos looked like the dregs of the royalty free bin, which someone nevertheless thought was "good enough." Of course my aesthetic standards are higher and I thought the whole thing was lame. But I also had to wonder if non-photographer, non-artistic viewers of that ad -- even if they couldn't say exactly how they felt about the artwork -- still got a subliminal message of cheapness that they associated with the advertiser.
I won't say it's universal or even prevalent, but we're seeing a "rebound" from the cheap camera/cheap photographer syndrome in our own corner of the market. Companies needing ad or process photos and individuals needing portraits or weddings photos who have been burned by their own failures or the work of amateurs are resurfacing in the market. They're now looking for true professional help and recognize that they're going to have to pay to get it.
I'm not talking about stock photography, which is the undercurrent of this thread. Rather I'm talking about being paid to push the shutter release, then in the case of the companies, licensing the photos. Our stock sales are incidental to those projects and fees are the same as license fees for shots taken on the job, accounting for only about 20% of our annual gross income.
Funny coincidence that this thread is at the top of the list in the Photo Marketing forum, because it's tax time and I spent four hours with our accountant yesterday, signed the forms, wrote a check, and mailed our filing. For us 2009 income was up 12% over 2008.
But coming from the conversation with the accountant, I have to reiterate that a photo business is more than a balance of income and expenditure. It's a question of what you DO with the income and your longtime goal for the business itself--- what it will consist of in the end, over and above a collection of camera gear and image files. Hope you follow that because it's a really important step into the real world of business beyond the dreams of being a great photographer.
In our case, we have spent 20+ years using the shutter release to build an intact stand-alone business with real estate, name and established clients which is NOT dependent upon us to continue its existence. We wanted to build a business that could be sold someday (retirement plan, donchaknow) even as we kept all the image files. We could walk out one door with our accumulated images as the new owner came in the other, ready to take over the facilities, the name, and the client list.
Interesting enough, your business is as much about what you DON"T shoot, as it is about what you shoot. We don't shoot school photos or team photos for example, and we don't want the complication of employees. We also don't want to be open for business 10 hours a day, 6 and 7 days a week. But to a prospective buyer, those areas represent growth opportunities and business potential. We never looked at it that way before, but our accountant pointed out that the potential growth areas add perceived value and opportunity to a potential buyer, rather than taking over a business that has completely tapped out the market potential.
Sorry for the diatribe, but this was all fresh in my mind after the long session with the accountant. If you haven't talked to one about business potential, you really are limiting your thinking about pro photography. There's lots more opportunity than stock photography if you're willing to do it to support your stock habit.
Discussion
12 replieshttp://www.nytimes.com/.../business/media/30photogs.html?pagewanted=1&hpw
It truly is sad as I was hoping to pursue Photography in a Professional way.
I welcome your thoughts...
Greg
Nevada
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30photogs.html?ref=business
Greg
Nevada
I think more apt within this forum is the fact that we nature photographers are to some extent a dime a dozen, and there are huge numbers of people doing pro quality work (and I am not placing myself among them--but check these forums--there's plenty of exceptional photographers who aren't making anything off their work). The improvements in digital SLRs, the ability to manipulate and fine tune images digitally, and at least for many of us, our general affluence that allows access to first rate gear, means that the supply of outstanding photos is absolutely going to outstrip the demand. Making it as a pro has as much to do with marketing yourself as it has to do with the quality of your work. (not demeaning the quality of pros in any way, simply saying that great shots no longer sell themselves.)
The many people doing exceptional work do so with many motivations (see the very thoughtful previous posts under the heading, My journey as a Photographer). Some people are pros, and while they're obviously doing it for more than just the money, it's important to them because it's their living. But many others are doing it as a hobby (and what I especially appreciate here, as an art) for their own satisfaction--and these people are probably undercutting the "pros" because they're willing to sell their work relatively cheap because the money is not so important.
Personally, I have a book contract (non-profit, and no royalties paid, produced entirely as part of my regular job), and I'll be submitting 50 photos to go with it. The book is part of my job, but the photos are entirely donated--shot and processed entirely on my own time, and the result of hundreds of hours in the field. I could care less if I get paid for these photos--I take photos for my own pleasure, and am simply excited about the chance to see them in print and the fact that they will add another dimension to my book. It's a great motivator to really learn and do some good work before the deadline arrives. This kind of attitude may not be good for photography as a profession--but is it bad for photography as a pursuit and an art? I don't think so.
I could go on and on in a few more directions, but will allow it to rest and keep thinking about it for a while.
Brian
We've seen an interesting trend in our own business over the last two years, compared to the previous 20 years. The number of clients is down, but individually they're spending more. That's true for all sectors of our business from traditional studio portraiture to industrial photography. Two years ago client #'s were down close to 25%, but total sales were down only 2% from the previous year. Last year client count was still down from two years ago (about 10%, so better than last year), while revenues were our highest ever.
Who knows what this year will hold?
And that's the nature of the business these days. It's really hard to forecast income, so you have to be really conservative and manage every cent that comes through the door. But that's true in boom years, too.
I always find Hank's observations on the business of photography interesting as we share a similar type of market. The largest difference would appear to be the educatability of clients. Here assignment by hindsight is very popular as are contests and 'exhibitions' that are in reality advertising campaigns. One local artist has a sign on his door advising people not to approach him for free work for their cause.
While it may reflect local conditions, and I would be interested in the experience of other markets, the biggest hurdle is that many of those using photography haven't a solid visual background or education. One of my friends, formerly the photo editor of the local paper, can launch into a dissertation at a moments notice about allowing reporters to take pictures. Shooting a building fire at night with a polarizing filter is among his favourites.
In reflecting on the photographers i have met over the years those that had the most stable careers and income were those that taught photography at the post secondary level. But did they have as much fun?
Brian is a perfect example when he says he could care less about getting paid for all of the time and effort to produce 50 photos for a book, saying he is happy to donate them simply for the joy of seeing them in print. He could've easily have asked for some money, but for him the value was completely intangible.
When people operate a business simply to help pay for what they do as a hobby, and where the ultimate goal is to "buy a new lens" has led to exactly what the New York Times article points out, namely that competition, devaluation, and lowered goals and expectations have radically changed the marketplace.
Words to live by.
I'm not talking about stock photography, which is the undercurrent of this thread. Rather I'm talking about being paid to push the shutter release, then in the case of the companies, licensing the photos. Our stock sales are incidental to those projects and fees are the same as license fees for shots taken on the job, accounting for only about 20% of our annual gross income.
Funny coincidence that this thread is at the top of the list in the Photo Marketing forum, because it's tax time and I spent four hours with our accountant yesterday, signed the forms, wrote a check, and mailed our filing. For us 2009 income was up 12% over 2008.
But coming from the conversation with the accountant, I have to reiterate that a photo business is more than a balance of income and expenditure. It's a question of what you DO with the income and your longtime goal for the business itself--- what it will consist of in the end, over and above a collection of camera gear and image files. Hope you follow that because it's a really important step into the real world of business beyond the dreams of being a great photographer.
In our case, we have spent 20+ years using the shutter release to build an intact stand-alone business with real estate, name and established clients which is NOT dependent upon us to continue its existence. We wanted to build a business that could be sold someday (retirement plan, donchaknow) even as we kept all the image files. We could walk out one door with our accumulated images as the new owner came in the other, ready to take over the facilities, the name, and the client list.
Interesting enough, your business is as much about what you DON"T shoot, as it is about what you shoot. We don't shoot school photos or team photos for example, and we don't want the complication of employees. We also don't want to be open for business 10 hours a day, 6 and 7 days a week. But to a prospective buyer, those areas represent growth opportunities and business potential. We never looked at it that way before, but our accountant pointed out that the potential growth areas add perceived value and opportunity to a potential buyer, rather than taking over a business that has completely tapped out the market potential.
Sorry for the diatribe, but this was all fresh in my mind after the long session with the accountant. If you haven't talked to one about business potential, you really are limiting your thinking about pro photography. There's lots more opportunity than stock photography if you're willing to do it to support your stock habit.