I just read an interesting article in a magasine.It`s too difficult for me to translate,but it`s reffering to the present,where good quality cameras are easily accessible to any amateur.That people buy a 500 Euro DSLR,consider themselves instant professionals and start wedding-photography businesses,without even having proper equipment.
The article also mentions that photography art galleries are more accessible to those who have the right connections,and less to those who actually know the "art" in their work.
And DSLR`s are evolving just like cell-phones,with more and more un-necessary gadgets/functions.
I would have to disagree - only because I feel that it simply means more people are finding that they have a passion for photography that wouldn't have been ignited otherwise. And if they can make a profit off of something they enjoy, why not? You don't need a sweatshop to sell clothes; you don't need a bakery to sell cookies and in my opinion, you don't need to turn this hobby into a 9-5 gig complete with a studio and all the equipment known to man to be able to capture a moment or feeling. :)
Just to add to what I already said, regarding the connections and whatnot - that's an issue in every industry. Nothing in life is fair and people seldom get what they deserve handed right to them. If you have the drive and sometimes, luck, you can get to where you need to be.
I'd rephrase it slightly Martin. The art remains - those with a good eye and a better appreciation of the technical aspects of photography (aperture, depth of field etc.) will still take the better shots, even with less expensive gear.
What I see though is the erosion of the profession. With so many people now in possession of capable DSLR cameras, many of them do choose to set-up in business. As I see it, the onus is then on the 'professionals' to demonstrate through their better images that they provide a better 'service'.
Also, many of these new, often young, photographers are quite prepared to give away images just to get the exposure (for inclusion in magazines for instance) - this makes it very difficult for those trying to make a living from photography.
Again though, the same applies, take better shots and you'll win out in the end...but it is certainly not getting any easier.
@spaceman You'd think, right? But (and maybe I'm speaking for myself here) seeing an interesting or unusual photo inspires people. It's not like there is a set list of what can and cannot be done - the possibilities are infinite.
@indiannie_jones Sorry,the website is glitchy with me... I was stating an example,like someone saying "hey I`ve had it with slasher movies,I`ve seen Saw and Scream,so why would Psycho be any different? No,thanks" .....
It is getting harder to run a photography business. Not because there are more photographers, but because there are more people with cameras who think they are photographers and are happy to compete based on price point. Most photography businesses fail within the first two years. Why? Mostly because photographers price themselves too low. They feel the need to do this because of all the pseudo-photographers charging $500 for a wedding, with the digital files included. They do it because there are pseudo-photographers willing to take jobs like this: http://springfield.craigslist.org/med/2019061857.html
But you know what I did when people started undercutting me? I raised my prices. And it worked - I got MORE bookings. More jobs, and more money per job, equals happy jinx. ;)
There is also the issue of people buying DSLR cameras and thinking they are suddenly masters and don't need to hire a pro for anything. They think that they are good because they have a good camera. I saw someone shooting with an L lens (Canon pro line lens, for those unfamiliar - a $2k lens) a few days ago, using "the green square of doom" (full auto setting). I mean, why would anyone do that? Because they think the camera is what makes them good. These people think the "P" setting is for "Professional". Yes, really. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using auto (well, I suppose I am in some way), but there is something wrong with buying the best gear and not having a clue what the settings actually do. Or caring. Sorry. *end rant*
Just remember, there was a time when portrait artists (painters) hated on photographyf or tearing the guts out of THEIR profession. Digital is hated on for similar reasons. And every big step in photo-tech is going to elicit something of the same reaction. I'm not bothered by it personally, but the industry is suffering and people are losing their businesses because they don't know how to adapt.
@spaceman Beacuse Psycho was around before the other two and even if there are aspects (in this example, film techniques and so forth) that weren't incorporated into Psycho, it was a big deal at the time for a reason and you can't get to something "better" without a starting point :)
With equipment being available to more people I'd say it's only natural we're seeing more amateurs (like myself, for instance!) who may or may not succeed at what they're doing. But I certainly don't think it's a bad thing that more people get into photography? I generally feel that if I have a passion for something, I want to share it and help others discover the same type of joy... not restrict it to an elite group and exclude others. Plus, everyone has to start somewhere. Rome wasn't built in a day and you don't become as professional photographer after a week. I've had a DSLR for about a year and a half and I feel that I am constantly improving by studying other photographers' work etc.
I too have seen people start up businesses (although it can range from more or less serious ones, like offering local pet photography or what have you) where I may feel I personally that they aren't exactly at a professional level yet. But, supply and demand. If people like their photos, they buy them. If they don't like them, they won't buy the photographer's services... who then has either the choice of learning to get better, or get into something else. So I expect cases like that tend to eventually work themselves out...
(And on the other hand, I've seen professional photographers whose work don't speak to me at all. You can have all the technical stuff down and still manage to take a photo that isn't the least bit captivating to at least some people).
I don't feel there is a set of rules on how one HAS to view photography. There are so many aspects, styles, techniques etc. A photographer who prefers to photograph landscapes may have different priorities than a model photographer. Someone who focuses on photographing wild animals may not find much pleasure in studying photographs of cityscapes, and so on. To each their own... I would think it's up to each person to decide for themselves what they may think is an unnecessary gadget on their camera, what and how they want to photograph etc. For me, as an amaetur, at the end of the day what's most important is whether I like my photos or not, not how strangers view them :)
Sheesh, strong word using "raped"... as usual, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The digitalisation of photography and the ease and relatively small expense of creating and manipulating photos means more people want to make a living from photography. However, there are more mediums, which means more people want photographs, so demand has increased exponentially at the same time.
I agree that some people who are clearly not skilled are trying to make a living, but the truly exceptional photographers tend to be the ones who get hired. To be brutally honest there are a few people on this site even who have set up websites and have tried to sell their work or their services that I'm surprised about, as I don't consider their stuff to be up to the mark. I don't think I'm even close, so although I've been asked to do bits and bobs of work it's been for free and I set the expectation that it might not be of a professional standard.
Yes, D-SLRs are getting very advanced, with features that most do not even use. Some help, some hinder, in my opinion. However, as Dean (@nodecaff) states, those with a true 'eye' for photography will make do with whatever camera equipment they have and can produce exceptional work regardless.
Personally, if it wasn't for the digitalisation of photography I almost certainly wouldn't be interested in the art. People like instant results these days, and digital cameras offer that because you can see what you've produced immediately. Together with the reduction in costs I wouldn't have a D-SLR if prices are where they were a decade or so ago.
@nodecaff@jinximages - there is an interesting dynamic at work here. I haven't read everyones comments, but I was tempted to mention it right away.
Branding. That carries alot of weight. Especially when it comes to events in peoples live that they want to remember.
Jinx raising prices is a testament to people associating a brand with prices. His work stands out. People are willing to pay more than the budget photog.
The original point has some merit. But as we know the cream always rises to the top.
In the racket I was in, press, the availability and ease in which people could use DSLR's as point and shoots made it worse. I dont have a problem with people getting a better shot than me, and I think that those who do deserved more money. Dont get me wrong, pretty much all press can play unfairly at times, esp if it was a real important story, but the sheer level of agression now is breathtaking I find.
Changes meant that more and more 16-18 year old lads came on board, by the likes of Big Pictures and Matrix, and those lads, not only didnt have any training in photography, but more importantly they had no training in press etiquette. When I started out, and if a story broke, a photograph would be taken from a respectful distance (with more often than not the support and pre-arrangement of the celeb or subject). But the aggressive behaviour grew as more photographers came into the game. I've watched these young lad 'photographers' point lenses inches away from celebs, chase them at high speed, push each other over, slash tyres of the opposition's cars.. The two agencies encouraged this behaviour, and the result basically means that the pap's in this country (and America) are animals, and they think its all a great joke. I've seen these lads play football against the wall of the house of a murder victims family home while waiting for them to come out.
I think its been effected in a few ways : The availability of an 'on the day shot' of a celeb drove down prices to less than a quater of the old rate. Picture editors would get approx 25 different photographer's images sent of the one mug shot, so they could afford to offer less. On some occasions, the agencies offered their pics for free, just so the opposition didnt get into the paper. Huh?
The quality of the press has gone down, and the obsession of celebs has gone up, its a very very cheap way to fill the paper, even with the broadsheets. Lots of old school, real, decent press photographers are losing work because they arent cheap and they arent pap's. There are more court injections in place to stop press from photographing celebs who are hounded every day and every night.... these were not heard of before.
These guys are making the right for privacy law get strong, and tbh, its not something I totally agree with when its in the public interest, ie, expenses scandal by MP's story had been hushed for a bit. These important stories I feel passionately that should be exposed, and I do not want a law where we just get news thats fed through celebs, leaders and MP's PR agents.
Rant over, lol.
@spaceman Ooh, this is an interesting thread! @blightygal I genuinely sympathise re your points about the press photography, but in general:
I think only the uber rich elite should be allowed to own any DSLR camera, and then only be permitted to set up a photography business when they have passed the correct ' suitably creative/ I use all the buttons all the time' exams.
Kidding, but you get my point ;-)
I'm with Annie and Jessica on this, it's a big world and surely there is space for everyone? In the great karma of life I believe the gifted/decent/honest invariably do better in the end. I'm all for being all inclusive :)
I tend to agree with what most people are saying here... end of the day, you're getting more competition at different price points. If money is an issue, you'll find someone in that bracket, however if you're looking for good quality, generally you'll pay for it.
There's another issue thats being missed here which may drive out some people and / or make clients rethinkthings and thats backup of photos. Is the photographer professional enough to bank up the photos as soon as they're taken home? Generally the cheap guys wont and if they dont then sooner or later, there will be problems - keep in mind the clients will expect the photos, no matter what your problems are.
A photographer I know of told me of a photographer he'd known. he'd done a few wedding shoots in a row and one night he got home and put his gear down wihtout taking proper backups etc. His place was broken into and all his kit stolen including memory cards. The photographer put out ads asking for the cards to be returned, didnt care about the kit, just the cards but no luck. He was unable to get the images for the couple who hired him and they understandably were very upset. They went public - used the press and as a result the photographers business died and he had to leave the country.
@spaceman yeah it is but if it were my special day, I'd be very upset if a photogragrapher who I commissioned lost my photos. I mean how many times will you get married in life? 5 - 7 times? hee hee
Interesting range of replies here! Here's my thought:
The affordability of better cameras just makes more of us able to enjoy the hobby of photography, as has been said. Personally, I *love* to take photographs ... but I don't harbor any delusions that I can start charging people money to capture the important moments in their lives.
On the other hand, I have a friend who, after everyone kept telling her how fabulous her photos of her own new baby are, she decided to start a business taking portraits of other peoples' babies. And she's FANTASTIC at it. She's booked out till next year.
Not everyone can do that, but if all the equipment was out of reach, my friend wouldn't have a new career that she adores, and in which she excels.
I agree with @jinximages I think it's great photography is more accessible to more people (although to me, it's not like photography was hidden away in a secret vault, I think people were just too lazy to actually have to try and make film work for them, because there were repercussions to being a crappy photographer on film, like loss of money on processing). I know it's helped me, especially early on in the game. But since I do make money from photography, I'm having to fight for jobs against a jillion others with cheapy DSLRs charging nothing to little to nothing. More than once I've had clients back out because "I found someone with a big camera that will do it for free." I have to laugh, because one of these clients, 4 months later, still has NO images from their "wonderful" free "photographer." With me, they would've had edited images next day. Oh well, their loss. But it does suck when it's harder and harder to count on the extra money photography brings in for me. I'm a full time student, so photography jobs are easy to work in around studying and what not!
I use to do mainly import car photography, and talk about a hard business to make any money in when everyone owns a bottom of the line Canon or Nikon, and is willing to work for free. Now most import magazines refuse to pay for photos, because they know most amateurs will turn stuff over for free just for the chance to get published (or the magazines will just steal photos they find online... yes, it DOES happen), whereas anybody shooting professionally wants compensation. I can't blame people, as it is exciting to get published, but it does set a horrible standard of "will work for free."
And I still believe you will pay to play the game if you want to make good money. There's a reason Getty Images/other agencies/publications have camera/equipment requirements, and it's not because they want to limit photography to rich people... yeah, it sucks, but there is a difference between cheap lenses and expensive lenses, cheap bodies and expensive bodies, cheap lighting and expensive lighting. You can be the best photographer in the world, but if your $20 strobes from ebay keep spazzing out on you and dying, you're not going to get the shot you need, or not very easily (and sometimes you don't have hours to get what you need...).
@jinximages@hmgphotos Ok as two pros... I want to check with what you are saying... both of you mentioned expensive equipment.. I assume you are not saying epensive equipement is needed... rather reliable equipment (with back-ups of back-ups) are needed...
If all you needed was great equipment for say studio work you could simply buy a Phase One P40+ (no not a canon or nikon, but a great digital camera) it can tether to all kinda of equipement so the client/hair/make-up people can watch in real time what the model is doing on a 40" LCD screen... well the files are uploaded wirelessly to the art department for tomorrow cover... ect...
I think if you are a 9-5 pro... you need baseline equipment... you need equipment that does the job and does it well time and time again... but any more is money out of YOUR pocket...
There is no reason why you cannot use cheap bodies... I know of a pro who destroys camera... it just happens... he takes two bodies well cave slunking and climbing... all that banging around means trashed cameras... a cheap KX with wide/faster sigma might not last many trips... but it does the job...
BUT on a different note... you have to love the clients who do not get anything... than you can "re-shoot" the wedding 4 months later... and still get paid...
For me as a professional accountant... when I sit down with a new client... I tell them they can find cheaper bookkeeping on the internet... and if they want to try it they are welcome too... I will still be here a month/year/years later when that fly-by-night screws up to get them out of a mess with the taxman... often they just stay with me...
@jinximages wow that craigslist ad is CRAZY. i might offer a $50 thank you to a friend who took photos for me expecting nothing but i certainly wouldn't look to *hire* someone for that amount!
@icywarm I think it depends on what type of photographs you are thinking about! You don't have to compare with the worst possible snapshots you can think of... The range is quite a bit wider than that, isn't it? The world is hardly split into professional photographers vs facebook snapshots. I was thinking more along the lines of many of our users here, of people at other photography sites and the likes. I've seen galleries where photos are technically excellent - making them all the more boring and mainstream. I enjoy character, feeling and personality in photos, and sometimes you find that in the raw, untrained photographs of people who have little knowledge, but a lot of heart. Coming from an amateur drawing/cartoonist background, I can appreciate different styles. That's a far shot from a facebook snapshot, which is something else entirely.
I also think we have to remember that not everyone sees photography with the same eyes. A vast majority of people in this world will not glance at a photo and think "Hm, a little underexposed and the focus is not quite spot on, the aperture could be higher for this style of photo" - rather they think "Oh, a cute photo of a pretty puppy!". We see things from totally different perspectives. If your expectations are lower and your knowledge less advanced, you will simply not see the faults. And if you don't have an interest in photography as such, who cares? Let people enjoy playing around with their cameras and post photos that they are happy with (heck, many people may not care about the photo itself at all, maybe the goal is to show who was at a party, or show a relative what their new pet looks like, or what have you). These people are hardly a threat to the professional photographing business. And if they are, something is wrong with the business LOL!
How cocky is the Craiglist guy? That on top of being cheap!
In my opnion, just because you're a "professional" at something (certainly not aimed at Jinx or Heidi) doesn't mean you're actually worth what you charge. I'm taking examples of local photographers' sites I've found - no originality at all! I couldn't care less what camera they're using or how much they're conning people out of - at the end of the day, if a picture is crap, it's crap and that's all there is to it. Bit of a tangent, but some of these aforementioned photographers' rates were stupid high and I saw no justification as to why. I saw the pictures taken at a wedding I went to in the summer and was expecting something really special because he appeared to know what he was doing AND he charged a couple grand, but the results were awful. I mean proper awful. Some of them looked more like a joke on his part, to throw them off.
Creativity doesn't come with the kit and I agree fully with @novablue that while some people might have a big, bulky camera producing the same, generic ideas, there will also be someone who doesn't have the equipment or expertise to hold them back from trying something new. As with any creative medium, you can buy all the tools and still not use them to their full potential.
@novablue yes what you said... the weakness of my hurried formish obviously portrayed something different than you so elegantly prose... (Formish – A term I just made up for quick, hurried type, with no proof reading or spell check… )
This sort of commoditisation, which apparently isn't even a word, can be seen in any industry/area given enough technological advances, or in some cases even purely just with enough time. Especially with the internet now, we see it happening increasingly rapidly in many different forms. That's the true commoditisation, which probably still isn't a word, underpinning and empowering most of the others we're seeing - including photography. Now everyone can be a publisher, can show off their work, have "a voice", and can get "stuff" "out there". Naturally it leads to an increase in noise, but you'll also get more people who otherwise wouldn't have discovered they had a knack for it, discovering they have a knack for it.
Generally I think you do get proportionally more noise, so this does lead to a reduction in the signal/noise ratio, if you ask me. Which is a bad thing, but there's also nothing you can do about it, so blah. Other than put your prices up, of course ;)
I like @nodecaff 's phrasing though - "the erosion of the profession", more than "the art of photography being raped".
Anyway I realise I've basically just said "me too" using a stupid number of words but I've typed it now so I'm afraid you'll have to endure it. Sorry!
@eyebrows your signal/noise ration reminds me of a stat I read in a book about google... (Books - are the things with paper written often in prose, by authors... for those of the tech generation! :) Every min 35 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube... within the year it is perdiced every day more video will be upload to the web than all the broadcast content of a national networks entire year... for those playing at home that is 14 years a day being upload per day now!!!
Holy smeg @icywarm that's pretty mind blowing. They must be adding new hard drives into their servers in a fashion similar to wallace and/or gromit adding track down in front of their electric train in that scene from that wallace & gromit thing from far too many years back.
@eyebrows Google does not say... but they physically have 15 server farms, about 450 server racks with 40-80 servers on each... assume at least 1 TB on each gives you north of 36,000 TB.... now that is a LOT of porn! (which is estimated to be over 60% of the total content of the internet!) (should correct that... total traffic, content is around 15-30%)
I agree with Dean about what makes a great photograph is still the eye of the beholder. But it does make it easier for more people to produce great finished products with good digital cameras and software.
I am kind of shocked at the number of people who want to make their living as photographers. I always wished I had done that at a younger age, as I always dreamed of working for National Geographic.
What truly shocks me is how much people are willing to spend for wedding photographs and other professional portraits. It just blows my mind.
And just another comment, I have been alive long enough to see many changes in technology (there wasn't tv available in my hometown until I was 12). I absolutely love the many forms of technology that make my life as interesting and convenient as it is today. Digital cameras, editing software, e-mail, facebook, and one of my all time favorites DVR!
@jinximages very interesting craigslist ad. Don't think the guy realizes just how much work is involved in taking pictures of people. I didn't realize how how much i was cheating myself until i took family pictures for friends and was sitting there editing them all.$50 doesnt even come close, let alone the 60 i was payed.
@hopeless A business coach who specialises in photography businesses once told me, "If you're not making $125 per hour, you are going backwards." When I sat down and worked out my overheads, I realised he was right. $50 should be a nominal amount to book a session, if anything. In fact, I don't even charge a session fee anymore, but my print prices cover it in the end, assuming people love my images enough to buy plenty of them. :) It would make my day to find out someone took that job, and then told the client they had to buy the images they want (as it should be). Of course, I doubt they'd buy any - they obviously don't value photography enough to pay what it is worth.
Interesting. As someone who has enjoyed taking pictures for years, but only recently began paying attention to the more technical aspects, this sort of scares me. :)
I have dreams of at least supplementing my income down the road, but this is far down the road because I am so not there yet.
I had a friend offer to pay me to do photos of her and her bf, but I wouldn't let her. Her choices were me or wal-mart (she values photography but finances are tough). I wouldn't dare take her money at this point. It's a learning process for me, and maybe if we're lucky, she gets something out of it. I wouldn't dream of charging anyone anything until I feel I can offer a quality product.
I don't have a DSLR yet. I'm kicking myself for not learning more about my old Canon Rebel 2000, but I think with film and cost of processing, I was scared to break from auto mode.
Now all of my shooting is in manual mode, and I think I learn something daily. I hope this progression continues and then some day. . .
As far as price points and such, my "circle" is largely teachers. At least in my state, I know many of them can't afford the high quality photos and shoots of some blogs I follow. I also have worked in special education, and another goal/dream is to offer a quality photo shoot and prints to families with children with special needs. I'm talking about the more moderate/severe level of disability. Many of these families are strapped for money because therapies, treatments, etc. are costly. Plus, not everyone has a comfort level working with those with disabiliies. If I could offer an attainable price point for these families, who otherwise wouldn't be getting pictures at all, and still make a bit of $$, I'd be happy. I don't know at this point in time if this will be possible, but I can dream. :)
@jinximages - I know what you mean about people only using auto. I know there are times when it's useful, but if you want auto only, why not just buy a decent P&S? I've had my D5000 on manual mode for the whole month I've had it and, while I don't always get great results, at least I'm learning...
@indiannie_jones - Wow is this offensive! Thanks for standing up Annie. Did I read this right? Only the privileged should take photos?
Who the hell here has not been a beginner?
What about those that have not been handed a damn nice camera?
In the country I was born anyone has the right to start a business. I hear the American government is handing out money to those who have no vision. They got a 1 800 number, right?
@barrymikhal Completely agree with you. That's what I got out of it.
If it weren't for a "cheap" $600 dollar good quality camera, I wouldn't be where I am now. Not saying I'm a pro at photography, but I've come a long way in the past 5 years, starting out with a cell phone camera when I was 15. I haven't been handed anything, I've had to work for it, and photography is another thing I don't expect to be just handed to me. I have a lot to learn, but having a decent camera kind of helps. I know it's not just about the equipment, but having a decent camera does help.
I've had my camera for over a year and I'm STILL learning how to use it.
Not every amateur goes out and starts up a business. I'm sure this post and some of the replies weren't meant to be offensive, but I, being one of those amateurs, don't feel as though all beginners should be grouped together. That being said, just because someone has a decent camera, doesn't mean they take good pictures.
Daughter hired a photographer for her wedding, someone everyone at her church recommended. Got the CD back and started looking at the pictures, even the ones that were "edited". My wife does a better job of editing that the "photographer". Even the two or three people that my camera got passed to did a better job. Buyer beware.
A friend asked me to take pictures at his wedding, I in washington and he in Colorado. I declined, told him to get someone reliable for the formal shots, as I wasn't even close to know what "formal" shots there should be and I didn't want the hassles. I did take candid shots at the wedding and were well appreciated. No pressure, great shots of Everyone that attended. I ramble.
@barrymikhal I read it totally differently... not that amatuers shouldn't take photos but rather than amatuers shouldn't take phtotos then charge as if they were professionals for those photos...
I really appreciate those with extensive skill and knowledge in photography. When my husband and I got married five years ago, we hired a professional photographer who was still shooting medium format, which was pretty much unheard of by then. It was what suited our tastes, but a lot of people would have chosen a kid with a digital camera who was charging half as much. Like it or not, there is a demand for that.
I also don't think it's fair or right to get all holier-than-thou about art. If someone who has never taken a photography class and would never have had access to photography equipment before DSLRs can self-teach and create moving images, is their art any less valuable? Or if someone wants to use professional quality cameras for hobbyist purposes, should they not be allowed to do so? I saw a man with an L lens taking pictures of his kids on auto at the pumpkin patch a few weeks ago. I thought it was ridiculous that he was using such extensive equipment to capture something that a point-and-shoot would have caught just fine, but it's not my place to judge him.
I shoot weddings for friends and family, and don't charge them. But eventually I'd like to branch out. (Unless teachers suddenly start getting paid what we deserve.) Those I've photographed have all told me that they are just as happy with my work as they would have been with a paid professional's. I am learning as I go, but aren't we all?
im certainly an amature and tell everyone i shoot for, im learning slowly, taking classes and practicing what i love! im not going to make a living out of it, just do it on the side and for myself. i am doing shoots for free right now for practice and because im so new, and when i start to charge it wouldnt be anywhere near what a pro will charge, but only because i usually only shoot friends or family, or friend's families or something. im not going to do weddings ever as a main photographer only as a second because i dont have the skills or knowledge yet for all that. a lot of people are getting into it more (at least around here) is to seem cool or something, but for me and my sister who just recently got into it, its because we have always loved it and just got the money for a dslr. that doesnt make us love the art any less. we shoot friends and family, mainly as a hobby with a little profit. i respect everything about professionals and would never call myself a professional, unless i actually became a pro, which wont happen. like i said before i always let people know im an amature and still learning and to not expect professional quality images, just expect images that will be different and fun :) its taking me a while to get used to all my settings, so sometimes i will break down and shoot auto, but almost always am trying out different settings! theres nothing wrong with auto in my opinion in a tight bind for a quick picture of something you might miss or if you're just shooting for fun and playing around!
and another thing: the only things i have coming up that are being charged, are not really "charged" its offered. again like i said, im in no place to be charging a lot of money for amateur pictures. and so my prices when i do charge will be cheap, not to get more business but more to help those who want different pictures who may not have enough money for a pro, or are saving up for a pro btw i realize i kept spelling amateur wrong haha, i was typing fast and not paying attention! i probably made a lot of typos!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
What I see though is the erosion of the profession. With so many people now in possession of capable DSLR cameras, many of them do choose to set-up in business. As I see it, the onus is then on the 'professionals' to demonstrate through their better images that they provide a better 'service'.
Also, many of these new, often young, photographers are quite prepared to give away images just to get the exposure (for inclusion in magazines for instance) - this makes it very difficult for those trying to make a living from photography.
Again though, the same applies, take better shots and you'll win out in the end...but it is certainly not getting any easier.
It is getting harder to run a photography business. Not because there are more photographers, but because there are more people with cameras who think they are photographers and are happy to compete based on price point. Most photography businesses fail within the first two years. Why? Mostly because photographers price themselves too low. They feel the need to do this because of all the pseudo-photographers charging $500 for a wedding, with the digital files included. They do it because there are pseudo-photographers willing to take jobs like this:
http://springfield.craigslist.org/med/2019061857.html
But you know what I did when people started undercutting me? I raised my prices. And it worked - I got MORE bookings. More jobs, and more money per job, equals happy jinx. ;)
There is also the issue of people buying DSLR cameras and thinking they are suddenly masters and don't need to hire a pro for anything. They think that they are good because they have a good camera. I saw someone shooting with an L lens (Canon pro line lens, for those unfamiliar - a $2k lens) a few days ago, using "the green square of doom" (full auto setting). I mean, why would anyone do that? Because they think the camera is what makes them good. These people think the "P" setting is for "Professional". Yes, really. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using auto (well, I suppose I am in some way), but there is something wrong with buying the best gear and not having a clue what the settings actually do. Or caring. Sorry. *end rant*
Just remember, there was a time when portrait artists (painters) hated on photographyf or tearing the guts out of THEIR profession. Digital is hated on for similar reasons. And every big step in photo-tech is going to elicit something of the same reaction. I'm not bothered by it personally, but the industry is suffering and people are losing their businesses because they don't know how to adapt.
I too have seen people start up businesses (although it can range from more or less serious ones, like offering local pet photography or what have you) where I may feel I personally that they aren't exactly at a professional level yet. But, supply and demand. If people like their photos, they buy them. If they don't like them, they won't buy the photographer's services... who then has either the choice of learning to get better, or get into something else. So I expect cases like that tend to eventually work themselves out...
(And on the other hand, I've seen professional photographers whose work don't speak to me at all. You can have all the technical stuff down and still manage to take a photo that isn't the least bit captivating to at least some people).
I don't feel there is a set of rules on how one HAS to view photography. There are so many aspects, styles, techniques etc. A photographer who prefers to photograph landscapes may have different priorities than a model photographer. Someone who focuses on photographing wild animals may not find much pleasure in studying photographs of cityscapes, and so on. To each their own... I would think it's up to each person to decide for themselves what they may think is an unnecessary gadget on their camera, what and how they want to photograph etc. For me, as an amaetur, at the end of the day what's most important is whether I like my photos or not, not how strangers view them :)
The digitalisation of photography and the ease and relatively small expense of creating and manipulating photos means more people want to make a living from photography. However, there are more mediums, which means more people want photographs, so demand has increased exponentially at the same time.
I agree that some people who are clearly not skilled are trying to make a living, but the truly exceptional photographers tend to be the ones who get hired. To be brutally honest there are a few people on this site even who have set up websites and have tried to sell their work or their services that I'm surprised about, as I don't consider their stuff to be up to the mark. I don't think I'm even close, so although I've been asked to do bits and bobs of work it's been for free and I set the expectation that it might not be of a professional standard.
Yes, D-SLRs are getting very advanced, with features that most do not even use. Some help, some hinder, in my opinion. However, as Dean (@nodecaff) states, those with a true 'eye' for photography will make do with whatever camera equipment they have and can produce exceptional work regardless.
Personally, if it wasn't for the digitalisation of photography I almost certainly wouldn't be interested in the art. People like instant results these days, and digital cameras offer that because you can see what you've produced immediately. Together with the reduction in costs I wouldn't have a D-SLR if prices are where they were a decade or so ago.
Branding. That carries alot of weight. Especially when it comes to events in peoples live that they want to remember.
Jinx raising prices is a testament to people associating a brand with prices. His work stands out. People are willing to pay more than the budget photog.
The original point has some merit. But as we know the cream always rises to the top.
Changes meant that more and more 16-18 year old lads came on board, by the likes of Big Pictures and Matrix, and those lads, not only didnt have any training in photography, but more importantly they had no training in press etiquette. When I started out, and if a story broke, a photograph would be taken from a respectful distance (with more often than not the support and pre-arrangement of the celeb or subject). But the aggressive behaviour grew as more photographers came into the game. I've watched these young lad 'photographers' point lenses inches away from celebs, chase them at high speed, push each other over, slash tyres of the opposition's cars.. The two agencies encouraged this behaviour, and the result basically means that the pap's in this country (and America) are animals, and they think its all a great joke. I've seen these lads play football against the wall of the house of a murder victims family home while waiting for them to come out.
I think its been effected in a few ways : The availability of an 'on the day shot' of a celeb drove down prices to less than a quater of the old rate. Picture editors would get approx 25 different photographer's images sent of the one mug shot, so they could afford to offer less. On some occasions, the agencies offered their pics for free, just so the opposition didnt get into the paper. Huh?
The quality of the press has gone down, and the obsession of celebs has gone up, its a very very cheap way to fill the paper, even with the broadsheets. Lots of old school, real, decent press photographers are losing work because they arent cheap and they arent pap's. There are more court injections in place to stop press from photographing celebs who are hounded every day and every night.... these were not heard of before.
These guys are making the right for privacy law get strong, and tbh, its not something I totally agree with when its in the public interest, ie, expenses scandal by MP's story had been hushed for a bit. These important stories I feel passionately that should be exposed, and I do not want a law where we just get news thats fed through celebs, leaders and MP's PR agents.
Rant over, lol.
@blightygal I genuinely sympathise re your points about the press photography, but in general:
I think only the uber rich elite should be allowed to own any DSLR camera, and then only be permitted to set up a photography business when they have passed the correct ' suitably creative/ I use all the buttons all the time' exams.
Kidding, but you get my point ;-)
I'm with Annie and Jessica on this, it's a big world and surely there is space for everyone? In the great karma of life I believe the gifted/decent/honest invariably do better in the end. I'm all for being all inclusive :)
Interesting relevant article in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/nov/16/criticism-critics-photography-susie-linfield
There's another issue thats being missed here which may drive out some people and / or make clients rethinkthings and thats backup of photos. Is the photographer professional enough to bank up the photos as soon as they're taken home? Generally the cheap guys wont and if they dont then sooner or later, there will be problems - keep in mind the clients will expect the photos, no matter what your problems are.
A photographer I know of told me of a photographer he'd known. he'd done a few wedding shoots in a row and one night he got home and put his gear down wihtout taking proper backups etc. His place was broken into and all his kit stolen including memory cards. The photographer put out ads asking for the cards to be returned, didnt care about the kit, just the cards but no luck. He was unable to get the images for the couple who hired him and they understandably were very upset. They went public - used the press and as a result the photographers business died and he had to leave the country.
Owh wow,now that`s a sad story :-((
The affordability of better cameras just makes more of us able to enjoy the hobby of photography, as has been said. Personally, I *love* to take photographs ... but I don't harbor any delusions that I can start charging people money to capture the important moments in their lives.
On the other hand, I have a friend who, after everyone kept telling her how fabulous her photos of her own new baby are, she decided to start a business taking portraits of other peoples' babies. And she's FANTASTIC at it. She's booked out till next year.
Not everyone can do that, but if all the equipment was out of reach, my friend wouldn't have a new career that she adores, and in which she excels.
I use to do mainly import car photography, and talk about a hard business to make any money in when everyone owns a bottom of the line Canon or Nikon, and is willing to work for free. Now most import magazines refuse to pay for photos, because they know most amateurs will turn stuff over for free just for the chance to get published (or the magazines will just steal photos they find online... yes, it DOES happen), whereas anybody shooting professionally wants compensation. I can't blame people, as it is exciting to get published, but it does set a horrible standard of "will work for free."
And I still believe you will pay to play the game if you want to make good money. There's a reason Getty Images/other agencies/publications have camera/equipment requirements, and it's not because they want to limit photography to rich people... yeah, it sucks, but there is a difference between cheap lenses and expensive lenses, cheap bodies and expensive bodies, cheap lighting and expensive lighting. You can be the best photographer in the world, but if your $20 strobes from ebay keep spazzing out on you and dying, you're not going to get the shot you need, or not very easily (and sometimes you don't have hours to get what you need...).
If all you needed was great equipment for say studio work you could simply buy a Phase One P40+ (no not a canon or nikon, but a great digital camera) it can tether to all kinda of equipement so the client/hair/make-up people can watch in real time what the model is doing on a 40" LCD screen... well the files are uploaded wirelessly to the art department for tomorrow cover... ect...
I think if you are a 9-5 pro... you need baseline equipment... you need equipment that does the job and does it well time and time again... but any more is money out of YOUR pocket...
There is no reason why you cannot use cheap bodies... I know of a pro who destroys camera... it just happens... he takes two bodies well cave slunking and climbing... all that banging around means trashed cameras... a cheap KX with wide/faster sigma might not last many trips... but it does the job...
BUT on a different note... you have to love the clients who do not get anything... than you can "re-shoot" the wedding 4 months later... and still get paid...
For me as a professional accountant... when I sit down with a new client... I tell them they can find cheaper bookkeeping on the internet... and if they want to try it they are welcome too... I will still be here a month/year/years later when that fly-by-night screws up to get them out of a mess with the taxman... often they just stay with me...
I also think we have to remember that not everyone sees photography with the same eyes. A vast majority of people in this world will not glance at a photo and think "Hm, a little underexposed and the focus is not quite spot on, the aperture could be higher for this style of photo" - rather they think "Oh, a cute photo of a pretty puppy!". We see things from totally different perspectives. If your expectations are lower and your knowledge less advanced, you will simply not see the faults. And if you don't have an interest in photography as such, who cares? Let people enjoy playing around with their cameras and post photos that they are happy with (heck, many people may not care about the photo itself at all, maybe the goal is to show who was at a party, or show a relative what their new pet looks like, or what have you). These people are hardly a threat to the professional photographing business. And if they are, something is wrong with the business LOL!
In my opnion, just because you're a "professional" at something (certainly not aimed at Jinx or Heidi) doesn't mean you're actually worth what you charge. I'm taking examples of local photographers' sites I've found - no originality at all! I couldn't care less what camera they're using or how much they're conning people out of - at the end of the day, if a picture is crap, it's crap and that's all there is to it. Bit of a tangent, but some of these aforementioned photographers' rates were stupid high and I saw no justification as to why. I saw the pictures taken at a wedding I went to in the summer and was expecting something really special because he appeared to know what he was doing AND he charged a couple grand, but the results were awful. I mean proper awful. Some of them looked more like a joke on his part, to throw them off.
Creativity doesn't come with the kit and I agree fully with @novablue that while some people might have a big, bulky camera producing the same, generic ideas, there will also be someone who doesn't have the equipment or expertise to hold them back from trying something new. As with any creative medium, you can buy all the tools and still not use them to their full potential.
With that said, I shoot on auto often :)
Generally I think you do get proportionally more noise, so this does lead to a reduction in the signal/noise ratio, if you ask me. Which is a bad thing, but there's also nothing you can do about it, so blah. Other than put your prices up, of course ;)
I like @nodecaff 's phrasing though - "the erosion of the profession", more than "the art of photography being raped".
Anyway I realise I've basically just said "me too" using a stupid number of words but I've typed it now so I'm afraid you'll have to endure it. Sorry!
Now that is noise to signal ratio!
I am kind of shocked at the number of people who want to make their living as photographers. I always wished I had done that at a younger age, as I always dreamed of working for National Geographic.
What truly shocks me is how much people are willing to spend for wedding photographs and other professional portraits. It just blows my mind.
And just another comment, I have been alive long enough to see many changes in technology (there wasn't tv available in my hometown until I was 12). I absolutely love the many forms of technology that make my life as interesting and convenient as it is today. Digital cameras, editing software, e-mail, facebook, and one of my all time favorites DVR!
I have dreams of at least supplementing my income down the road, but this is far down the road because I am so not there yet.
I had a friend offer to pay me to do photos of her and her bf, but I wouldn't let her. Her choices were me or wal-mart (she values photography but finances are tough). I wouldn't dare take her money at this point. It's a learning process for me, and maybe if we're lucky, she gets something out of it. I wouldn't dream of charging anyone anything until I feel I can offer a quality product.
I don't have a DSLR yet. I'm kicking myself for not learning more about my old Canon Rebel 2000, but I think with film and cost of processing, I was scared to break from auto mode.
Now all of my shooting is in manual mode, and I think I learn something daily. I hope this progression continues and then some day. . .
As far as price points and such, my "circle" is largely teachers. At least in my state, I know many of them can't afford the high quality photos and shoots of some blogs I follow. I also have worked in special education, and another goal/dream is to offer a quality photo shoot and prints to families with children with special needs. I'm talking about the more moderate/severe level of disability. Many of these families are strapped for money because therapies, treatments, etc. are costly. Plus, not everyone has a comfort level working with those with disabiliies. If I could offer an attainable price point for these families, who otherwise wouldn't be getting pictures at all, and still make a bit of $$, I'd be happy. I don't know at this point in time if this will be possible, but I can dream. :)
Who the hell here has not been a beginner?
What about those that have not been handed a damn nice camera?
In the country I was born anyone has the right to start a business. I hear the American government is handing out money to those who have no vision. They got a 1 800 number, right?
If it weren't for a "cheap" $600 dollar good quality camera, I wouldn't be where I am now. Not saying I'm a pro at photography, but I've come a long way in the past 5 years, starting out with a cell phone camera when I was 15. I haven't been handed anything, I've had to work for it, and photography is another thing I don't expect to be just handed to me. I have a lot to learn, but having a decent camera kind of helps. I know it's not just about the equipment, but having a decent camera does help.
I've had my camera for over a year and I'm STILL learning how to use it.
Not every amateur goes out and starts up a business. I'm sure this post and some of the replies weren't meant to be offensive, but I, being one of those amateurs, don't feel as though all beginners should be grouped together. That being said, just because someone has a decent camera, doesn't mean they take good pictures.
A friend asked me to take pictures at his wedding, I in washington and he in Colorado. I declined, told him to get someone reliable for the formal shots, as I wasn't even close to know what "formal" shots there should be and I didn't want the hassles. I did take candid shots at the wedding and were well appreciated. No pressure, great shots of Everyone that attended. I ramble.
I also don't think it's fair or right to get all holier-than-thou about art. If someone who has never taken a photography class and would never have had access to photography equipment before DSLRs can self-teach and create moving images, is their art any less valuable? Or if someone wants to use professional quality cameras for hobbyist purposes, should they not be allowed to do so? I saw a man with an L lens taking pictures of his kids on auto at the pumpkin patch a few weeks ago. I thought it was ridiculous that he was using such extensive equipment to capture something that a point-and-shoot would have caught just fine, but it's not my place to judge him.
I shoot weddings for friends and family, and don't charge them. But eventually I'd like to branch out. (Unless teachers suddenly start getting paid what we deserve.) Those I've photographed have all told me that they are just as happy with my work as they would have been with a paid professional's. I am learning as I go, but aren't we all?