Making Money in Photography

[Berkeley Mike]

I teach photography at a local college. Ours is a vocational program, that is, we develop photographers who can go out into the world and make money. So, I thought I would ask you all this question:

In the greater Photographic industry and marketplace, does it make more sense to train to make money in Film Photography or Digital Photography?


View attachment 159011 Photo by Ewa Nassalska

 

[Breezy85]

I think it doesn't matter whether digital or film, because both are a form of photography. Some prefer old school film and others prefer digital. I think if you're going to teach how to make money and make a living in photography, just generalize it.

 

[Designer]

In the greater Photographic industry and marketplace, does it make more sense to train to make money in Film Photography or Digital Photography?

I can't see where the medium would make any difference. It's just photography in the end, and considering that most people can't tell or don't care whether it was captured on film or an electronic sensor, why would anyone favor one over the other? If your graduates can make excellent photographs in a variety of conditions, then they are photographers.

 

[robertana.c.3]

Sorry this is a naive reply as I don’t do photography for a living but I haven’t met any commercial photographer that is doing film over digital in probably 10+ years. Not to say you can’t but I just don’t see it. Digital you can take as many shots as you want and just delete what you don’t want much more exponentially than if you are using film rolls. Digital you can post process in a thousand more ways than film with no digital post processing. Resolutions in digital far exceed film in my limited experience.
I’m curious as to the film people’s side to this question. Is there something film can do that digital can’t?
Again please pardon my naivety on this question.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

All responses are welcome as perspective is what I am after.

 

[Jamesaz]

If I were young and just starting out (I'm neither) and wanted to work in a storytelling media I'd look at digital animation as a career starting point. Still photography, especially film, is a wonderful building block, however.

 

[jeffW]

Honestly I can't believe this is still a question. My question, do you have the student price out what a simple assignment would cost for both methods? Including accounting for all the hidden fees (time) fulfilling an assignment.

I live fairly close to one of the last professional labs in my region and even that would be a hassle to travel back and forth to have film processed plus FedEx plus the added turn around time

I will say one of the great things about the film age was NO-ONE not a realtor, not cost conscience newspaper, not a start-up interior design firm ever questioned the film and lab fees. Now I hear people shooting RE for hundreds less than what I use to bill in film and lab fees. It does seem like people who were photographers back then had more training including more time as apprentices where accounting principles were discussed.

Any class designed around the guise of making money with the arts should have lengthy discussions on both the accounting aspects(CODB) as well as licensing principles.

just my humble opinion

 

[smoke665]

Speaking simply from the business side, I would think that digital would offer more opportunity for income - (portrait, advertising, web, etc). It seems that the market for film would be limited more to the artistic side, and income would depend on access to a market that has the disposable income to spend on such things.

 

[Designer]

I teach photography at a local college. Ours is a vocational program, that is, we develop photographers who can go out into the world and make money. So, I thought I would ask you all this question:

In the greater Photographic industry and marketplace, does it make more sense to train to make money in Film Photography or Digital Photography?

I see you now have one vote in your poll. I would have selected "makes no difference" if that was an option.

 

[480sparky]

........Digital you can take as many shots as you want and just delete what you don’t want much more exponentially than if you are using film rolls. Digital you can post process in a thousand more ways than film with no digital post processing. .................

In other words, Spray and Pray. A consummate and competent photographer, however, doesn't need to. Great photos have been taken since the creation of silver-based emulsions. I don't ever recall Ansel Adams speak of shooting in terms of frames per second.

........Resolutions in digital far exceed film in my limited experience. I’m curious as to the film people’s side to this question. Is there something film can do that digital can’t?
Again please pardon my naivety on this question.

People who say this rarely shoot anything more than 35mm. Medium and Large Format film can blow the pants off digital.

 

[Jeff15]

The best way to make money is to sell your gear.....

 

[jeffW]

The best way to make money is to sell your gear.....

ummm... to make money somewhat refers to the idea of a profit over your costs. I personally have never been able to sell any of my used gear for more than I bought it, but I do see a lot of people on Craigslist that try that approach.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

........Digital you can take as many shots as you want and just delete what you don’t want much more exponentially than if you are using film rolls. Digital you can post process in a thousand more ways than film with no digital post processing. .................

In other words, Spray and Pray. A consummate and competent photographer, however, doesn't need to. Great photos have been taken since the creation of silver-based emulsions. I don't ever recall Ansel Adams speak of shooting in terms of frames per second.

........Resolutions in digital far exceed film in my limited experience. I’m curious as to the film people’s side to this question. Is there something film can do that digital can’t?
Again please pardon my naivety on this question.

People who say this rarely shoot anything more than 35mm. Medium and Large Format film can blow the pants off digital.

Is that really the case? Maybe my palette isn’t as refined but I know I can’t tell the difference between images from a full frame and a medium format. At least not to the point where I could say one blew the pants off the other.

Maybe this should be discussed in a dedicated thread though since it’s not the op’s question.

To the point of the thread though, I think a business class would be better suited to prepare students for what to think about when forming a photography business not a photography class.

 

[pgriz]

Given that making images is so easy these days, and with so much stock photography available for pennies, a photographer making money has to be selling much more than the image. In other words, images are commodities, and one cannot make money on commodities unless one is dealing with a very large volume. Therefore, my thinking is that the true requirement here is not the type of image capture (film vs. digital) , but the ability to recognize a need that enough people are prepared to pay money for, and then convince the prospective buyers that your "product" is worth whatever you choose to ask for it. The field of study that covers is is "Marketing" and "Sales". Those who have gone through formal business training know that luxury products or "experiences" bring in the highest profit margins, because their desirability has little to do with the underlying costs. In my opinion, discussing whether one should use film or digital is on the same level as discussing whether one should use nails or screws for fastening wood to make furniture. It's a production detail. It's not going to generate the demand that will allow the photographer to charge at least a decent price per image or package.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Given that making images is so easy these days, and with so much stock photography available for pennies, a photographer making money has to be selling much more than the image. In other words, images are commodities, and one cannot make money on commodities unless one is dealing with a very large volume. Therefore, my thinking is that the true requirement here is not the type of image capture (film vs. digital) , but the ability to recognize a need that enough people are prepared to pay money for, and then convince the prospective buyers that your "product" is worth whatever you choose to ask for it. The field of study that covers is is "Marketing" and "Sales". Those who have gone through formal business training know that luxury products or "experiences" bring in the highest profit margins, because their desirability has little to do with the underlying costs. In my opinion, discussing whether one should use film or digital is on the same level as discussing whether one should use nails or screws for fastening wood to make furniture. It's a production detail. It's not going to generate the demand that will allow the photographer to charge at least a decent price per image or package.

What a great analogy (nails vs screws). I think you made my point more clearly.