An article in today's NY Times points out:
"...the huge shake-up in photography during the last decade. Amateurs, happy to accept small checks for snapshots of children and sunsets, have increasing opportunities to make money on photos but are underpricing professional photographers and leaving them with limited career options. Professionals are also being hurt because magazines and newspapers are cutting pages or shutting altogether."
Here's the link: http://tinyurl.com/ydlgvc9
Has this been the experience of the pros on this site?
it's so true. Go look on craigslist, you'll find dozens of offers by people looking to start a photography business based only on their opinion that they "have a good eye" and are creative. They offer their services for free, and drive all of the experienced and pro photographers out of a sale. I think it's a really bad problem, and while sites like this one make me happy to see amateur photographers improve their hobby, it really does matter to me that those same people aren't hurting the real business of professional photography. Local photographers who rely on the business to live, are being beat out by the popularity and expansion of the internet, and the lowering prices of photography equipment. It's sad to see.
anyone hiring a "professional" photographer with low prices should beware.
and hopefully once people start hearing the nightmare stories about why they shouldn't have had "uncle frank" take the wedding photos...maybe they'll smarten up.
At first iStockphoto etc seemed like a way for pro photojournalists to make money, but it quickly has had the opposite effect, driving prices down across the board. (There's a similar phenomena for journalists: content aggregators like Demand Studios etc pay a few dollars per story, making it increasingly difficult for a freelance writer to charge the same rates they did a few years ago.) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971409,00.html
I'm a writer, and am occasionally asked to take photos because I'm already on site doing interviews and it's cheaper for the publication to have me take photos than to send a professional photographer. I don't mind making a little extra money, and I do my best to curb my own style (such as it is) to take a photo that brings some new info to the reader/story. But I definitely prefer a professional to do the job, as they have so much more ability to assess the options and strategies to maximize the possibilities.
Ok, just read the article you posted. This, I think, is the key thing:
>>“Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”
Just to let you know its the same here in the UK, I,m a wedding and portrait (outdoor) photographer 5 years ago i was giving away work, now i am struggling to get it
I have lowed my prices as such to try and cater for a basic range, but people still dont want to pay
I have access to albums that ordinary folk cant get, I used a master printer not an on line lab
I process all my own work have top range equipment, and the guy down the road with his entry level camera and his cheap lens gets more weddings then me
Photography is an art, yet more and more people go purchase and entry level camera come out of the shop and suddenly they are a photographer
Example 2008 I was so booked up and i had to turn people away
2010 I have 1 booking at a budget price
be aware of amateurs and beware of not so talented photographers. separate them from the pro. sad to say that this cheap photographers are stealing jobs from those professionals.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
and hopefully once people start hearing the nightmare stories about why they shouldn't have had "uncle frank" take the wedding photos...maybe they'll smarten up.
At first iStockphoto etc seemed like a way for pro photojournalists to make money, but it quickly has had the opposite effect, driving prices down across the board. (There's a similar phenomena for journalists: content aggregators like Demand Studios etc pay a few dollars per story, making it increasingly difficult for a freelance writer to charge the same rates they did a few years ago.) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971409,00.html
I'm a writer, and am occasionally asked to take photos because I'm already on site doing interviews and it's cheaper for the publication to have me take photos than to send a professional photographer. I don't mind making a little extra money, and I do my best to curb my own style (such as it is) to take a photo that brings some new info to the reader/story. But I definitely prefer a professional to do the job, as they have so much more ability to assess the options and strategies to maximize the possibilities.
>>“Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”
I have lowed my prices as such to try and cater for a basic range, but people still dont want to pay
I have access to albums that ordinary folk cant get, I used a master printer not an on line lab
I process all my own work have top range equipment, and the guy down the road with his entry level camera and his cheap lens gets more weddings then me
Photography is an art, yet more and more people go purchase and entry level camera come out of the shop and suddenly they are a photographer
Example 2008 I was so booked up and i had to turn people away
2010 I have 1 booking at a budget price
watch this youtube video and you'll know why there are PRO to do the job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs