# The future of pro photography? Convergence? Your views...



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 13, 2011)

Hi all,

I've been debating this question with some friends quite a bit recently, I'm not a pro myself but have aspirations to go Pro. I understand changes are rapid in the modern age and the rise of amateurs 'pretending to be Pro's' simply because they went out and bought a DSLR is huge. As always (with the media), alot of what you read on the matter is NEGATIVE and says pro photography is doomed. But I sometimes wonder if that is the media doing their usual trick of fear mongering!

Is there a future for Pro Photography? 

Do you believe in the convergence of Stills and Moving? (Photography and Video)

It will be interesting to get some Pro views on this question, specially as I know this forum consists of people all over the globe!

Thanks


----------



## orljustin (Jun 13, 2011)

"go Pro" translates to ... what?  Wedding photographer?  Journalist?  Commercial shooter?  Portraits?


----------



## Formatted (Jun 13, 2011)

Question is to broad...


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 13, 2011)

Sorry guys, know it seems a bit vague!

My area of interest is portrait photography and I was hoping to by working freelance earn some money from shooting models to families to potentially in the long run (when I have some skills) weddings. 

But it was a general question really, as from what I'm hearing all areas of photography are being effected in some form. Just interesting to see what you guys see as the state of the industry at the moment and whether its as 'Tough' as some articles portray it as.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 13, 2011)

This isn't a popular opinion, but it's mine.

The professional photographer is a dying breed.  Yes, there will be pros a hundred years from now, but, IMO, it will be a niche market.  Something akin to the professional portrait painter of today.

The photographers that you mention who buy a DSLR and go pro the next week are dragging down the industry as a whole.  If a 'pro' who operates out of his trunk produces crap pictures, the next time, that client will just pass.  All they know is they hired a 'pro' to take their pictures and the quality wasn't much different than what they could have done themselves.  They don't know the difference.

That brings up the next obstacle for professional photography.  The standards have changed.  Now, a blurry, noisy I-phone pic that has a relatively recognizable subject is becoming the norm on websites like facebook.  Say what you want about facebook, but about 150 million people have an account in the United States, alone.  That's about half of the people in the United States who are exposed to their friends photos on a daily basis.  People become accustomed to that level of photography and the 'good enough' syndrome sets in.  Well, none of my other friends have really amazing photos.  The ones I took with direct flash and missed focus are good enough...why should they go spend money on a pro, especially when a lot of pros are so hesitant to give digital files in the first place.

Another dilemma, the shoot and burn photographer.  The client sees a guy take a few hundred pics, throw them on a CD, hand it over and collect the cash.  They, rightly, think, "Heck, I can do that."

In general, the internet and technology has changed a lot of professions and photography was not exempt from those changes.  If I need to change my Will, I am not going to go into the attorney's office and pay his fees.  I will go over to legalzoom.com and do it myself.  Does the attorney have more experience and training?  Sure, that's why he charges what he does, but I sure as heck know how to fill out a form.   Is it as good as what the attorney may have prepared?  Probably not, but it's good enough.  I no longer have an accountant...I have quickbooks and turbotax.  Why should I pay for professional services when I can do it myself for a small fee and less time than I would spend driving over to his office?

There will always be a market for the people at the top of their game, but the market is getting smaller.  More and more news agencies and magazines ares going out of business or switching to an online/video media.  Heck, it frustrates me to no end when I click on a news article and I get sent to a video, but that's the future.

People, in general, are just not willing to pay for professional services like they used to.  A lot of people realize that all the expert advice they could ever need is a google search away.  Heck, take forums like this.  We have people with 30+ years of experience telling people who just bought a camera how to shoot their cousins wedding or helping them with their business plan.

Photography is out of the hands of the pro's and firmly entrenched with the masses.  Sure, we will still have yearbook photos, wedding photographers, and the family portraits at Easter, but the professional photographer is starting to be phased out.  

Honestly, most people don't care if you used Rembrandt lighting or a straight on flash.  Their senses have been dulled by sites like facebook and for most of them, good enough is fine.

My boss is the lead guitar player for a pretty popular local band.  They just did a record deal and have some songs on the radio.  When I go to their facebook fan page, most of the pictures are taken with an I-Phone...Guess what, their fans don't care.  Professional photography is a luxury that they don't actually NEED to invest in.  Would it be better if the shots were taken by a pro?  Sure.  Would it make a difference to how many people show up to one of their gigs?  Probably not.

Just as there are high end painters available now for commission and carny people who paint a quick characterture for $5, there will be photographers in the future, but the middle ground that is the majority of professional photographers is quickly losing it's market.

Heck, I am a result of that.  When my daughter was born, I wanted to take better pictures so I bought a better P&S.  That didn't work, so I bought a DSLR.  That didn't work, so I bought a fast prime lens.  That didn't work, so I bought a flash.  I read about a hundred photography books during the journey and now I couldn't even imagine hiring a professional photographer to do a family shoot.  Heck, I can do it myself.

That's where the market is heading.  It's a little sad when I see a pro say that the $500 wedding photographer doesn't effect him because those people wouldn't have hired him in the first place...The truth is, they might have, but they can have 'good enough' for $500.  That is, unless, their uncle or brother or cousin happened to have just bought a fancy camera...

Edited to add:  I just went back and read this and it makes me a bit depressed.  It's all true, but it is still sad.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 13, 2011)

^^^^  I agree. This is why I don't quit my day job/career in hopes of a photography future, although I'm still going to the university for certification


----------



## Formatted (Jun 14, 2011)

I disagree, there will always been a market for good photography. Your just going to have to work harder.


----------



## KmH (Jun 14, 2011)

I'd say it will take working smarter, rather than working harder, and this notion about pro photography dying has been around ever since the second camera was made 170 years ago.

The marketplace is changing rapidly, particularly at the low end. The average person just wants a CD of the images to use for online and electronic display, not framed wall prints, gallery wraps, albums.
But don't forget there is, and always has been, a lot of 'churn' at the low end of the business. 1000 people in the US decided yesterday to start charging for their photographic services (turn pro), only 5 of those will have/acquire the business acumen, or have other financial means, needed to sustain that for very long.

Consequently, professional retail photographers need to be more savy about marketing, promotion, and being able to market and promote to a socio-economic demographic that does want framed wall prints, albums, gallery wraps, etc. Many don't understand how much revenue it takes to keep a business going.

Commercial photographers have to compete with the saturated stock market, and again marketing and promotion are increasingly important and the competition that much greater.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 14, 2011)

I totally disagree with Kerbouchard.

There are several problems with such questions on this forum. 1/ The ratio of pros to amateurs is way in favor of the amateurs some of whom have only very limited knowledge of photography and most of whom don't have any ideas what the markets are outside of retail photography. 2/ Most of the few pros here are in retail photography and probably don't know much more about the commercial markets. 3/ The commercial pros are often insulted as being elitists, show offs and worse when they say much about their work so they probably don't say as much as they would to other pros... I sure don't.

But I will tell you this: I opened a brand new studio a few months back with three shooting areas, the main one of which can take a semi tractor. The whole thing, building and gear, ran close to 1/2 a million euros. Do you think I (and two investors/clients) would have spent that kind of money if the market wasn't there to pay for it back and more?

Now, because of what I do, my studio is pretty extreme but take even much smaller commercial studios and there is no way the average DSLR buyer is going to worry us much. I mean, look at most of the threads here, people can barely afford their cameras... No way they can get into the gear need for some commercial work. If they could even think of what commercial markets are out there.

The retail pros are in trouble and they had better re-invent themselves but not the commercial photos.


----------



## nickzou (Jun 14, 2011)

Ummm stupid question but what is the difference between retail photography and commercial photography?


----------



## Formatted (Jun 14, 2011)

> retail photography and commercial photography



Retail your working with the public I.E High street studio
Commercial is working with companies.


----------



## nickzou (Jun 14, 2011)

So is the goal to be a commercial photographer? Is retail just a step along the way to the ultimate goal?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 14, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> I totally disagree with Kerbouchard.
> 
> There are several problems with such questions on this forum. 1/ The ratio of pros to amateurs is way in favor of the amateurs some of whom have only very limited knowledge of photography and most of whom don't have any ideas what the markets are outside of retail photography. 2/ Most of the few pros here are in retail photography and probably don't know much more about the commercial markets. 3/ The commercial pros are often insulted as being elitists, show offs and worse when they say much about their work so they probably don't say as much as they would to other pros... I sure don't.
> 
> ...



Actually, it doesn't sound like you disagree with me at all.  I stated that I think there will always be a position for people at the top of their game.  It sounds like you are in that category.  I also stated that retail pros are a dying breed, and you agree that they are in trouble.  I don't think our positions are too far off.


----------



## KmH (Jun 14, 2011)

There are retail photographers that make a lot of money. But, there aren't many of them. Some of the top wedding photograpers can demand $50,000+ per wedding, and are booked solid.
Plus those photographers are not only good at doing photography, they are also good at doing business. Only the top 5% of retail photographers have income after expenses of $50,000 a year or more.

Retail photography is doing weddings, events, and all the various subsets of portraiture (maternity, babies, kids, families, etc) and then selling products to the individuals in the images that are made.

The business model is based on selling the images made just one time.

Here in the US the average photographer makes about $32,000 a year. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2006/may/oes274021.htm

Commercial photographers use a different business model. They sells use licenses (rents the images) after charging for their time and the creative efforts they use to make the images.

Corporations need a new annual report every year. Management changes and new head shots are needed. Products get updated and new images for all the advertising have to be made.

This is where copyright becomes important. A use license defines exactly how a company or corporation can use the images you have made.

Exclusive use costs more than non-exclusive use. Geographical area of the use drives cost. World-wide use costs more than, northern hemisphere use, than western hemisphere use, than north american use, that just use in the USA or a region of the USA.

The number of copies to be printed drive the cost of a print media use license, and so forth.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 14, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Actually, it doesn't sound like you disagree with me at all.



Yes it does. Go re-read yourself.

"The professional photographer is a dying breed"  No, he is not.

"it will be a niche market." No more than it was ten or twenty years ago.

"The photographers that you mention who buy a DSLR and go pro the next week are dragging down the industry as  a whole." No, they are not. They are dragging the retail photography down only. Read me again. They CANNOT drag the commercial photogs down that easily. They don't have the means.

"That brings up the next obstacle for professional photography.  The standards have changed." Really? Have you worked in pro commercial photography?

"People become accustomed to that level of photography and the 'good enough' syndrome sets in." Sorry, not in the commercial realm.


Really, do I need to keep going and show you all of the things about which we disagree?

Most of your post is about retail photo. Probably because you have very little understanding of commercial photo. And, NO, I'm not an elitist. I actually try and help people get into it. I'm getting older and I can't take it to the grave with me...

But, no, I won't try and help people who think they know it all when they actually know very little.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 14, 2011)

90% of my post was regarding retail, portrait, landscape, and stock photography.  The other 10% was where I said certain aspects of photography are unlikely to be effected.  I would put the high end fashion photographer, the specialized commercial photographer, and the top of each of the other tiers in that category.

Just because my post doesn't specifically apply to your very specialized type of photography does not make it untrue.  Sure, if the photography that you do requires an investment of over 500,000 euros, you are certainly not threatened by the 'just bought a DSLR and ready to go Pro' guy.  But you are effected by the economy in general.  Costs like your type of service are among the first things cut when a company has a bad quarter.  I have no doubt that you find new customers, but I would be very surprised if some of your repeat business hasn't slowed down a bit.

In any case, everything you disagree with in my post relates to a very specialized form of photography that requires a huge initial outlay.  My post was meant more for the 99% of photographers who don't do work like you, which I thought I stated in my first post, but I guess I didn't make clear enough.

Time just recently paid $30 bucks or something like that for their cover.  Fortune 500 companies are paying a few dollars for stock photos for their advertising.  There is no reason to pretend that just because you can still get Mac to drive one of their trucks into your studio for great photographs that photography as a whole is not changing.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 14, 2011)

Some really interesting points raised here for both sides of the argument! Half of me feels there is truth in the statement 'There will always be a market for good photography' and there is probably alot of truth in the statement 'that photography has always been a niche market, so not alot has changed'.

But Kerbouchard has raised some food for thought also, if Time magazine are only paying 30 bucks for a cover? That is a bit sad and shocking in equal measures!


----------



## skieur (Jun 14, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've been debating this question with some friends quite a bit recently, I'm not a pro myself but have aspirations to go Pro. I understand changes are rapid in the modern age and the rise of amateurs 'pretending to be Pro's' simply because they went out and bought a DSLR is huge. As always (with the media), alot of what you read on the matter is NEGATIVE and says pro photography is doomed. But I sometimes wonder if that is the media doing their usual trick of fear mongering!
> 
> ...



Convergence is not a matter of belief, I have been mixing stills, motion, and animation in productions for at least a decade if not longer, and I am sure that I am not the only one.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2011)

I think within a generation or so, there will be an increase in the amount of retail photography that is done by higher-end, better-trained shooters. As more and more photography devolves to cell-phone snaps, I think the appreciation for "professionally done" photographs will increase somewhat, mostly as a symbol of status and wealth, but also out of a desire to have photos that truly "stand out from the crowd". The d-slr age is not the first time that photographic technology has been as some say made more democratic; George Eastman's $10 KODAK with 100 shots' worth of roll film pre-loaded into it at the factory increased the number of "photographers" many fold, but it never killed off the professional photography industry.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 14, 2011)

Derrel said:


> George Eastman's $10 KODAK with 100 shots' worth of roll film pre-loaded into it at the factory increased the number of "photographers" many fold, but it never killed off the professional photography industry.



It also couldn't take photos in the dark.  It couldn't focus and track the focus based on the most likely subject.  It couldn't compare the scene in front of it to a million different scenarios and choose the exposure it thinks the photographer is going for.  It didn't have the built in intelligence to take great photos.  Modern cameras can evaluate a scene, predict the focus point, set the most likely proper exposure, and take the shot before you would have been able to wind the film in George Eastman's Kodak.

No, you can't just set a camera to automatic and expect the perfect shot every time, but how long do you really think we are from having that available to us?  Maybe the shot you get won't be exactly what your artistic vision says should have been created, but it will be what hundreds of designers, developers, and programmers have deemed optimal.  For a lot of people, that will be good enough.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 14, 2011)

Technology has decreased the amount of human presence in every industry over time.


----------



## skieur (Jun 15, 2011)

To draw an analogy, computer art programs may have made drawing easier, but they certainly did not make every computer user of such software into digital artists. The technology in photography will make documentation/illustration easier but as Derrel alluded to, the photos that "stand out from the crowd" due to their artistic composition and sometimes the style and expression of the photographer, will certainly NOT be produced by anyone with an automatic camera.

skieur


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 15, 2011)

I have to agree with most of what both c.cloudwalker and kerbouchard have said, they have both stated very valid points.  I know that on this forum I have been bashed for some of my statements, usually coming from those that don't always understand the professional business.  I heard a great statement the other day. "Don't criticize what you don't understand"  I have been guilty of this as I'm sure most people have been, but when it comes to photography and the time I've put in I believe I have a right to make some of the statements I've made, and it doesn't bother me if people disagree, that is what dialogue and opinion are based on.

Photography has changed, there is no doubt in that statement. My Dad was one of the first professional photographers in our home town that that started using 35mm, many said that is would never beat out using medium or large format, he did continue to use medium and large format as well, but he also evolved and while he was shooting sports in the late 50's on 35mm, the medium format guys were lagging behind.  Digital did the same thing to film camera users, as a photojournalist, switching to digital had to happen.  For the large format commercial guys in studios, I don't believe that they felt the hit as quickly, over the past 5-6 years I have seen almost all the studios in my home town closing, and the couple that remain are still doing well, the former studio guys are now renting time to use their studios. 

In my field of shooting sports I've taken a  hit from the weekend warriors and people accepting average images.  I know that I can shoot with the best, I have never doubted that, but I find myself  competiting with these amateurs over contracts with minor league sports associations, they are offering to shoot for free, they can afford to work for free. I can offer better images, but I can't offer free. I found out today that one of them has taken on the role as communications director for a minor football league and  has control of 30 teams, he does it all for free.  So how do I re-package myself, more than I have been doing? I still have some of the elite sports organizations as clients but even with that they are also picking and chooing which events they want covered,(mostly due to lack of sponsors and funding) They used to have everything covered.

I have the skills to move into different fields of photography but my respect for other working professionals won't have me chasing their clients.  The future of professional photography has changed, and it does depend on which field of photography one works in.


----------



## KmH (Jun 15, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> ....if Time magazine are only paying 30 bucks for a cover? That is a bit sad and shocking in equal measures!


That was just one cover. They pay a lot more for most of their cover images.

IIRC Time paid much more than $30 to the stock house because of the size of their print run. $30 was the photographer's cut as result of that one sale of the stock image he uploaded to the microstock agency.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 15, 2011)

KmH said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > ....if Time magazine are only paying 30 bucks for a cover? That is a bit sad and shocking in equal measures!
> ...



Yes, they do pay a lot more for most of their cover images, but if they can get what they want for a lot less, of course, they will do it.  5 years ago it would have been unheard of for a photographer to make $30 off a Time Magazine cover.  Photography and the market is changing.  The fact that the stock house made a lot more money than the photographer doesn't say a whole lot for the future of pro photography.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 15, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > George Eastman's $10 KODAK with 100 shots' worth of roll film pre-loaded into it at the factory increased the number of "photographers" many fold, but it never killed off the professional photography industry.
> ...



Yes, for a lot of people, snaps will be "good enough". But for an increasing number of people who want photos for status purposes, or who appreciate quality images, or who cannot afford to have second-rate or even worse, STOCK images that other competing companies might have used, there will be an increasing need for photos made by trained photographers...people who can deliver BETTER work, and at a much,much HIGHER price. it seems that you do not really understand people very well. The Apple iPod is the MOST-expensive portable music player, and yet it commands the majority of the market category, because it is 1) the best tool and 2) it performs better than cheaper alternatives and 3) it carries with it cachet and status value. Same thing with the Apple iPhone in the smart phone category--it has a massive share of the smart phone market, even though it is priced much higher than the hundreds (literally hundreds) of competing portable phones. Again...there is "good enough" in the form of snapshot photos, and small, flash-memory music players, and cheap cell phones from Samsung and Erickson and Nokia--and yet, despite what economists would point out as BETTER products in terms of marginal utility analysis, in this, the 21st century, consumers are making what amounts to theoretically absurd choices. That is to say, they are willing to pay many times MORE money to get a product that has a very fine, valid actual substitute (substitute in the economic sense of the word) at a much lower price, and are instead opting for the HIGH-status, MORE-expensive alternative.

Do you remember the days when bottled water was ridiculed? When sports drinks were for the Florida Gators football team (ie. Gator-aid, homemade at first by the trainer at Univ. of Fla.)? Yes, for many people, the bare minimum is deemed "good enough". But apparently, you're missing the actual consumer behavior of a large segment of the population that has ample disposable income. If you want to focus on mall-level and low-end retail work, then sure, good enough is good enough,and snaps out of a digicam done by somebody's cousin's wife's nephew's friend will be used in some situations. Bottled water, sports drinks, expensive $900 Coach handbags, $300 jeans, $179 Nike court shoes...are you aware of the sales and buying patterns in the 21st century??? Do you fail to see how STATUS has a major impact on the success of many products and their very product categories? You want more wedding photography income for your business? Have you thought that if you were to improve your skill and triple your prices, that you would be attracting MORE total dollars, from fewer hours of work, from more-affluent clients? Or are you still thinking in terms of the all-shots-on-a CD-for-$500 wedding crowd?
Are you thinking in terms of tap water drinking customers, or in terms of bottled water drinking customers? Costco shoppers, or Whole Foods shoppers with MONEY?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 15, 2011)

Derrel, you make a lot of valid points, and I agree with much of what you said.  I do feel like I understand people pretty well, but our end conclusion seems to be different.

You mention expensive status symbols as a large part of our economy and people's disposable, and sometimes, not so disposable income.  I see that a lot, too.  I also see the bride who spends 20k on flowers, 6k on her dress, a few thousand for her chocolate fountain and wants to spend $500 on her photographer.  You are right.  It is all about status and how much she can impress her friends.  The truth is, most of the people who attend the wedding she doesn't really know, may not even like, and will probably never see the wedding photos, but she still wants to impress them, and in her mind, the best way to do that is a fancy venue, good food, and pretty flowers.

I'm just not sure I have ever thought of photography as a status symbol.  Even seeing portraits online, most could just as well have come from Sears.  In my opinion, it just isn't really a status symbol, anymore.  Now, an iphone pic of you in front of the Eiffel tower...well, that's a status symbol.

Sears does a good job for what they do.  The produce professional results at a cheap price and they are available to anybody.  There aren't many people who can tell the difference between a 'portrait' at the mall and the work from a professional photographer.  Is it creative?  No, not really.  Is it the same as the shot that came before?  Yes, probably.  Is it a good shot?  Most likely.  Is it a status symbol?  No, it hasn't been since you could get a package for under 13.99.


----------



## Formatted (Jun 16, 2011)

> 20k on flowers, 6k on her dress, a few thousand for her chocolate fountain and wants to spend $500 on her photographer



But have you actually seen this? Really? I mean come on....


----------



## Derrel (Jun 16, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> I'm just not sure I have ever thought of photography as a status symbol.



Well, let me relate tell you about a Chicago-based photographer friend of mine. He got his start back in the early 2000's doing night club photography. After a couple of years, he wanted to break into the wedding photography business. He did "okay", but was not satisfied with his overall bookings or total studio income on a yearly basis. I suggested to him that he DOUBLE his prices. He did so. Business went up. Demand for his services went up. Before the economy went in the tank, he was very busy with $3,500 weddings. As the "normal". Now that the economy has brought us to the worst recession in 30 years, his MINIMUM wedding package is still $2,000. Here is his current site: Mr. Stacey Photo ~ Chicago Wedding Photographer~ Contact Us

Once he raised his prices, his business went UP. There is a certain amount of status in being able to tell one's gal-pals that your daddy payed $3,500 for your wedding pictures.

Years ago, one of my college photo buddies apprenticed with a wedding photographer whose weddings began at $5,000--and this was in 1985. The guy lived in a city of only about 150,000 people, and was booked solidly, at 5k MINIMUM. Why? Status. Everybody in town knew he was the most-expensive photographer. His photos were only somewhat better than those of the more-normally priced guys in town, who had 15 to 20 years experience and established studios.

Why do you think Rolex is still in business? It ain't the time-keeping abilities any longer....a $149 Seiko or a Casio is JUST as accurate and reliable...


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 16, 2011)

Formatted said:


> > 20k on flowers, 6k on her dress, a few thousand for her chocolate fountain and wants to spend $500 on her photographer
> 
> 
> But have you actually seen this? Really? I mean come on....


 No, I have not personally seen it.  We decline those types of weddings.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 16, 2011)

Really interesting responses, this has gone in a completely different direction to how I expected it too though. I expected the majority of stories to involve everyone going out of business. But it seems there may be a strong point in the fact that people may be happy to pay for 'Quality' as there is a distinct lack of quality in most photography nowadays, due to people with mobile phone cameras thinking they are amazing.

There are obviously huge challenges in pro photography, but in reality it has struck me that there probably isn't an industry in the modern age that hasn't been effected by changes in technology? And I also feel alot of other industries will be dramatically different in twenty years from now, I have a strong feeling in the future alot of jobs will no longer need people. I firmly believe robotic computers will do alot of the work we do at a slice of the price it costs to employ a human being. Will any of us have jobs? Who knows, a complete mystery where technology will take us.

Also Derrel's status point is interesting, seems it could be true that people equate quality and status still with paying a decent price for something. 

I actually feel more positive since I posted this question, before I posted the question I had huge questions over whether there was a future for a career in pro photography.

But now I feel if i I take time to master my craft, market myself in the correct fashion and network vigorously then I can still put food on the table.

So my last question.... Do you guys think it's worth me taking the Big Leap and giving portrait photography a go? 

I am currently organizing a couple of shoots with amateur models, which should be a great learning experience.

I was also thinking of not just doing family portraits, but perhaps Pet photography aswell? As I know people adore their pets. And I feel this could be a bit of a niche?


----------



## Formatted (Jun 16, 2011)

> Do you guys think it's worth me taking the Big Leap and giving portrait photography a go?


I see no reason why you shouldn't try portrait photography, as discussed your quality has to be the best of the best to earn a decent living in this game. So wait till your taking top-notch shots before you engage in any sort of career jump.



> I am currently organizing a couple of shoots with amateur models, which should be a great learning experience.



Good place to start!



> but perhaps Pet photography aswell?



Boring as hell, but if it pays a wage why not?



> And I feel this could be a bit of a niche?



Google "Pet Photography Surrey" About 355,000 results.

Surrey from what I understand is an incredibly full market on the portrait front, there are plenty of people with disposable income so its the right place to start. If you can offer higher quality, better prices, increased quality of service and something unique.

Good luck to you!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 16, 2011)

People spend stupid amounts of money on weddings and yes it is to impress family and friends, couples are willing to go into debt just to make them look better in the eyes of the beholders. I have no doubt that photography isn't always the number one priority on the minds of the bride and groom.  Outside of wedding photography I see agencies and associations looking for ways to cut costs, and most of the time, photography is cut back or dropped completely, until some sponsor is looking for photos from an event they sponsored.

Many people do book photographers based on reputation, simply to say "look who I hired to do my portrait"  Karsh was hired because of his name and how he and his wife promoted him.  Yes he was a master of portratits, in his later years he relied on a skilled staff to set everything up and then he walked in and made the picture.  He was hired based on his name.

Photographers that charge large amounts aren't always better then photographers that don't, some people like the whole dog and pony show that comes with the money they are spending.  If a client is paying 5k for a shoot that could be done for $1000, he wants to see 5K worth of entertainment, equipment, extra staff running around, basically he wants his moneys worth, it's the perception that "this guy must be great"  Iv'e been in a situation where a photographer charged $1500 for a simple group shot of 25 people in the lobby of a hotel, he brought along more lights than he needed, or set up, did the polaroid shots to make sure it all looked right, spent 45 minutes getting everyone set and ready, and produced a very average photo.  I did the same shot the following year in a different location I walked in with two lights, set them up fired off 20 frames and 10 minutes from start to finish produced a better image.  I charged them $500, they were happy and I still have them as client after 15 years.  What did they learn, it's not about the all the smoke and mirrors that makes a photographer better than another one, it's the end result.


----------



## KmH (Jun 16, 2011)

This months issue of Rangefinder magazine says on the cover "The Future Starts Now" and has a nice article on the state of the industry that was written by John Rettie.


----------



## Joshonator (Jun 16, 2011)

It will change, but it won't die. I think wedding and portrait photographers may suffer the worst of it. But there will always be demand for high end photographers. The people who will choose a relative with a fancy camera over a pro would not have been willing to spend very much to begin with.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 19, 2011)

Thanks for the words of support Formatted! I checked out your flickr page, impressive work!

I checked out the 'Rangefinder' magazine, some really relevant info there, Cheers Keith.


----------



## skieur (Jun 28, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> In my field of shooting sports I've taken a hit from the weekend warriors and people accepting average images. I know that I can shoot with the best, I have never doubted that, but I find myself competiting with these amateurs over contracts with minor league sports associations, they are offering to shoot for free, they can afford to work for free. I can offer better images, but I can't offer free. I found out today that one of them has taken on the role as communications director for a minor football league and has control of 30 teams, he does it all for free. So how do I re-package myself, more than I have been doing? I still have some of the elite sports organizations as clients but even with that they are also picking and chooing which events they want covered,(mostly due to lack of sponsors and funding) They used to have everything covered.
> 
> I have the skills to move into different fields of photography but my respect for other working professionals won't have me chasing their clients. The future of professional photography has changed, and it does depend on which field of photography one works in.



The only answer for photographers is to become more flexible in what you shoot and to learn to transfer your skills to other areas. I have done sports, events, public relations, journalism, a few weddings, portraits, and multi-image, multi-media productions that use animation and video as well as graphics and stills. I have also written articles, scripts and produced television programs. I have presented my own productions to audiences and worked in French as well as English and shot televison in Ukranian, Italian, and Portugese.

My point is that I have not been chasing the clients of other professionals since I have in a sense created my own market and met the needs of clients in a unique multi-faceted manner.

skieur


----------

