# The changing times of photography



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

Everyday we read that newspapers are dumping entire photo departments, long time photo companies are closing and yet more and more people are turning to photography to make an extra buck on the weekends. We see that the area the new photographers are targeting are weddings, they believe it to be the quickest way to make money. 

People still have dreams of becoming photographers for a variety of reasons, and I understand most of them. I talk to a lot of very talented young photographers that tell me the best years of photography have passed and yet they are still out there trying, and most are struggling, where 10 years ago these guys would be looking at staff jobs almost anywhere.  These are the ones that went to school, learned photography, and that I consider some of the best young photographers out there, and yet they find it difficult just making ends meet. I know that this is happening in every city in every country.  The outlook is bleak at best for most.

So to pose a question, does it bother any of the full time photographers on this forum, or the weekend wedding photographers that have been in it for years that everyday in spite of the huge changes that they are seeing more and more unskilled people cutting in on their business. 

I don't need to hear the usual, "but they aren't as I am above that level" They aren't affecting my business at all, because the bottom line is that every day a tiny piece of work is being lost. Even if it is a $15 head shot that you might have done, add those up over the months and it does become a bigger piece.

Does it get frustrating or at times feel like you are wasting time trying to keep it going? Anyone can answer this this, from the beginner that is hoping one day, to the ones that have been at it longer but can't seem to get ahead, to the advanced photographers.

Personally I know the best years of photography have passed and I'm glad that I had the opportunity of being able to work during these years. I've talked to a lot of my friends that have been working as professionals for decades and they all feel the same way. Many of them have lost their staff jobs as well.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 7, 2014)

I walked over to Politico the other day with my cell phone and got offered a job.


----------



## skieur (Feb 7, 2014)

A lot of photographers get into a rut of limiting themselves to one area of photography such as weddings and when that area becomes extremely competitive and/or the age demographic in the area means fewer weddings, the result is it becomes tougher to make ends meet.

I always found that the answer was diversification.  You meet more people which leads to more and different jobs.  I have done television production, direction, scripting, translating, presenting, sports photography, public relations photography, event work, portraits, scenic photography, web site photography, photojournalism, advertising photography, etc.     The point is that there are always alternatives, if business has gone down in one area, IF you have added to and diversified your skill set.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

skieur said:


> A lot of photographers get into a rut of limiting themselves to one area of photography such as weddings and when that area becomes extremely competitive and/or the age demographic in the area means fewer weddings, the result is it becomes tougher to make ends meet.
> 
> I always found that the answer was diversification. You meet more people which leads to more and different jobs. I have done television production, direction, scripting, translating, presenting, sports photography, public relations photography, event work, portraits, scenic photography, web site photography, photojournalism, advertising photography, etc. The point is that there are always alternatives, if business has gone down in one area, IF you have added to and diversified your skill set.



I agree with you on photographers limiting themselves to one area, but many have only ever acquired one skill set, if they do weddings they may not have an interest in doing anything else, or have the skills to do anything else. If you look at the number of photojournalists that have lost jobs, they generally have acquired the skills to shoot in many different fields.  Weddings is probably the number one field that has become affected by the saturation of amateurs moving in to try and make extra money.

Like most of the photographers that I have known for years they are good at shooting a lot of different things, and yet they are still struggling to make ends meet.  It's really becoming a concern for so many. With the number of skilled and experienced photographers looking for any work, how can anyone dream of getting into the business?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 7, 2014)

My experience is that the "quick, easy money jobs" have realllllly decreased. It used to be, 20,25 years ago that if you knew how to shoot, you were a rare bird. Today, soooooo many people have a digital slr and some gear, and can make passable shots that are in focus and decently exposed. Sure, their compositions often leave a lot to be desired, but it also seems like many people are happy with so-so images that are "good enough", so just by the sheer increase in number of "photographers", the easy money jobs are now often done by somebody's cousin, or sister, or brother-in-law, etc.. The cousin or sister or brother in-law can do a "good enough" job, and do it free, or very cheaply. It's a very real issue these days.

I think the "cheapness" of digital shooting, meaning no film costs, no processing and proofing costs, and so on, has changed the financial dynamics so much. Shooting a wedding on 120 or 220 used to be a fairly costly endeavor for the photographer. You used to have to KNOW exactly what you were doing. That's changed. I see a lot of people who have learned how to operate a camera, but are still basically, average to semi-awful shooters, who have no idea how to compose or to frame properly. It's pretty sad, actually. Photo after photo of well-exposed shots, but quite often with horrible top space issues, _horizontalitis_, and other serious artistic shortcomings.

In my area, I see a LOT of the smaller, chain-owned newspapers are sending out reporters and section editors with d-slrs to shoot the majority of simple grip and grin shots and the really dull news pics. About the only area they are using freelancers or staff photogs is in the sports section, where some actual skills behind the eyepiece are needed.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> My experience is that the "quick, easy money jobs" have realllllly decreased. It used to be, 20,25 years ago that if you knew how to shoot, you were a rare bird. Today, soooooo many people have a digital slr and some gear, and can make passable shots that are in focus and decently exposed. Sure, their compositions often leave a lot to be desired, but it also seems like many people are happy with so-so images that are "good enough", so just by the sheer increase in number of "photographers", the easy money jobs are now often done by somebody's cousin, or sister, or brother-in-law, etc.. The cousin or sister or brother in-law can do a "good enough" job, and do it free, or very cheaply. It's a very real issue these days.
> 
> I think the "cheapness" of digital shooting, meaning no film costs, no processing and proofing costs, and so on, has changed the financial dynamics so much. Shooting a wedding on 120 or 220 used to be a fairly costly endeavor for the photographer. You used to have to KNOW exactly what you were doing. That's changed. I see a lot of people who have learned how to operate a camera, but are still basically, average to semi-awful shooters, who have no idea how to compose or to frame properly. It's pretty sad, actually. Photo after photo of well-exposed shots, but quite often with horrible top space issues, _horizontalitis_, and other serious artistic shortcomings.
> 
> In my area, I see a LOT of the smaller, chain-owned newspapers are sending out reporters and section editors with d-slrs to shoot the majority of simple grip and grin shots and the really dull news pics. About the only area they are using freelancers or staff photogs is in the sports section, where some actual skills behind the eyepiece are needed.



Well said, it is exactly what has been happening. I look back on my earlier days in the late 80's-90's and it was easy to pick up really good shoots, to the point where turning down jobs because of conflicts was happening. The skills I had always had me being competitive with anyone. These days as you mention, so-so images are accepted, and newspapers aren't using the experienced photographers as much as they used to, some of the papers have simply given in to letting the reports shoot the sports as well. Once proud award winning photographers and photo departments have been gutted and simply disposed of. It really is sad.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Feb 7, 2014)

Guess you have to find a new way to make money with your camera or find another way to make money without your camera.

Glad I didn't pick photography as anything more than a hobby.


----------



## InnovaWraith (Feb 7, 2014)

TheFantasticG said:


> Guess you have to find a new way to make money with your camera or find another way to make money without your camera.
> 
> *Glad I didn't pick photography as anything more than a hobby*.



Me too.  I wouldn't want it to become a chore.   I think the landscape is cluttered with too many subpar photographers that call themselves pro.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 7, 2014)

I worked in a camera store as a kid back in the early 60's.  At that time the city where I lived had about 30,000 people and exactly two full-time wedding / portrait photographers.  A couple of years ago I Googled photographers there to see how many there were and at that time there were over 250 of them.  The population of the city has doubled during the intervening years but the number of so-called "Professional" photographers has exploded.

The store I worked in had a portrait studio and a full-time staff member  that retouched portraits by hand.  She was an absolute wizard with a  retouching set and an airbrush, and it took her years to get that good.   Today anyone can learn the same skills in about 10 minutes of playing around with any of the dozens of editing programs available.

Personally I feel that most of the reason, as Derrell alluded to, is the fact that people are willing to accept poor to mediocre results these days.  Take a look at some of the garbage on You Are Not A Photographer that people are PAYING for.  Not only is it bad, people are unable to realize that it is bad.  Photographic standards, much like many standards today, have been lowered to nearly nothing.  Why does Joe-Bob with the P&S he got for Christmas last month get paid for taking photographs?  Because people are WILLING to pay him for it.  Why are his prices so much lower than yours?  Because you learned your trade and bought professional-grade equipment so you could produce the best quality photographs possible.  But that's not what people want these days.  They don't care about quality, only price.  And Joe-Bob's point-and-shoot and lack of knowledge and experience cost a whole lot less than your fees.  It's a sad fact.

Additionally, the fact that the vast majority of the photographs we see are seldom larger than necessary for a web site hasn't helped either.  Gone are the days of producing something that will look good at 16" x 20", today all you need is a small web-sized photograph capable of hiding all of the problems that can't be fixed with Photoshop.

I feel for you.  While I haven't been personally involved in professional photography I have watched from the sidelines for decades.  I've seen the good ones, I've watched them disappear and be replaced by people who barely know which end of a camera to point at the subject.  I've seen quality be replaced by quantity and talent replaced by cost.  And it won't get any better any time soon either.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 7, 2014)

This is one of those threads where I really hesitated to reply; not wanting to seem insensitive.  BUT.....one of the many things going through my brain is Prince's lyrics to "Sign 'O' The Times".  Not directly related to photography but.....

It's simply a competitive world out there no matter.  The amount of people who have had to compete for a long time (forever) against; ageism, sexism, racism, this-ism & that-ism.

So many experienced workers in many fields that have been replaced by younger and inexperienced, or robots and machines etc.

Yes at times I think about how some of it really really sucks.  Then I get my ass up and out and compete all over again.


----------



## KmH (Feb 7, 2014)

Several factors came together at about the same time, 2000, and have all had a growing effect on retail, commercial, and editorial photographers.

1. DSLR cameras.
2. Growth of the Internet.
3. Consolidation of the stock photo industry (Getty/Corbis/Jupiter).

In 2005, 2006, 2007 the number of women buying DSLR cameras shot up as the camera makers started marketing more specifically to women,

So today the industry is a mere shadow of it's former self.


----------



## Railphotog (Feb 7, 2014)

I've always been an amateur photographer, although I did a fair amount of photography for pay.  I took photos at area drag race and stock car tracks as a part of my interest in cars.  Didn't make a whole lot, but did get to see racing up close and personal.  I also did wedding photos for about 25 years, never advertised, got jobs by word of mouth.  Gave that up when it became too much of a chore on a hot summer's day.  Did a lot of photography at my "real" job because I was the guy who knew how to use a camera.  Got some great trips and experiences doing this, although photography was never in my job descriptions.  Used photography in another hobby of mine, have been quite successful with it in having my work published - 30 magazine covers and over 850 photos published.

Often I'd have people ask why I did not do photography full time.  Glad I didn't, as I retired from my full time position with a government agency 14 years ago at age 57, and am enjoying retirement and still do photography.  Don't think I'd have my current life if I actually had gone into photography full time.


----------



## 407370 (Feb 7, 2014)

Technology has moved on and the cost difference between "OK" and "Perfect" pictures is significant. The digital revolution has seen people like me taking the time to learn something about photography and doing it myself with low end gear producing acceptable end product. A pro photographer with better gear will produce better pictures but is the difference worth paying for? I have been paid to take pictures three times in my life and that was more to do with my computing skills than anything else but I have never hired a photographer.

Newspapers are dying. I cant remember the last time I bought one. Web news is based around low res video streaming and max resolution of 1024 x 768 JPG's that could have a million things wrong with them but they are so small and compressed it does not matter. A reporter with a handheld camera can fill those requirements. Sports and wildlife photographers are becoming a niche market thats getting overcrowded as the newspaper photographers are trying to diversify.

I have tought several people how to create low resolution slide shows for web using different methods so they could at least advertise some of their own "arty" pics and supplement their income. 

My advice to photographers is to learn web design and the technicalities of inserting  / creating bandwidth efficient slideshows, streaming video, hotspot manipulation and all the non text parts of modern rich media. The creative talents of photographers could be put to very good use.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> This is one of those threads where I really hesitated to reply; not wanting to seem insensitive. BUT.....one of the many things going through my brain is Prince's lyrics to "Sign 'O' The Times". Not directly related to photography but.....
> 
> It's simply a competitive world out there no matter. The amount of people who have had to compete for a long time (forever) against; ageism, sexism, racism, this-ism & that-ism.
> 
> ...



The people that don't understand are the ones that get my back up, this isn't your case though, I think you have an good idea about what has been happening. I never recommend people to go into photography anymore. There are times when I wish I had another skill set other than photography, who would of thought 35 years ago that photography would have fallen so far. It really is just a sign of the times.


----------



## InnovaWraith (Feb 7, 2014)

SCraig said:


> I worked in a camera store as a kid back in the early 60's.  At that time the city where I lived had about 30,000 people and exactly two full-time wedding / portrait photographers.  A couple of years ago I Googled photographers there to see how many there were and at that time there were over 250 of them.  The population of the city has doubled during the intervening years but the number of so-called "Professional" photographers has exploded.
> 
> The store I worked in had a portrait studio and a full-time staff member  that retouched portraits by hand.  She was an absolute wizard with a  retouching set and an airbrush, and it took her years to get that good.   Today anyone can learn the same skills in about 10 minutes of playing around with any of the dozens of editing programs available.
> 
> ...



Great points.  A few years ago my wife had some pictures done of her and the kids.  It was a paid shoot and the photographer was a friend of hers.  I was overseas for work at the time.  The pictures were horrible.  Out of focus.  Horrible white balance.  They all had blue faces.  They looked like something that was slapped together with cell phone pics with one of those effects apps.   I told my wife that she should never have paid for them and that even though it was her friend, when you charge money all bets are off and you should get what you pay for.  I still cringe every time I see them and I am by no means someone who is highly critical of others.  I was just mad that she paid so much money for such subpar work.  There are so many of those out there.  I agree with everything you said.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

Railphotog said:


> I've always been an amateur photographer, although I did a fair amount of photography for pay. I took photos at area drag race and stock car tracks as a part of my interest in cars. Didn't make a whole lot, but did get to see racing up close and personal. I also did wedding photos for about 25 years, never advertised, got jobs by word of mouth. Gave that up when it became too much of a chore on a hot summer's day. Did a lot of photography at my "real" job because I was the guy who knew how to use a camera. Got some great trips and experiences doing this, although photography was never in my job descriptions. Used photography in another hobby of mine, have been quite successful with it in having my work published - 30 magazine covers and over 850 photos published.
> 
> Often I'd have people ask why I did not do photography full time. Glad I didn't, as I retired from my full time position with a government agency 14 years ago at age 57, and am enjoying retirement and still do photography. Don't think I'd have my current life if I actually had gone into photography full time.



Your life would have been quite different had you gone into photography full time, sounds like you did it all the right way without turning it into a chore, but just enjoyed it for the most part.


----------



## runnah (Feb 7, 2014)

skieur said:


> A lot of photographers get into a rut of limiting themselves to one area of photography



This.

Nowadays to be in any sort of media trade you have to be versatile. Not to toot my own horn but I pride myself in my ability to do damn near anything that I am asked when it comes to media. For example Tuesday I went out to a job site to cover a milestone event. I shot photos and video, interviewed key people, came back to the office, wrote the article, edited the video, designed the graphics and published it on the website which I built. The job market these days is such that very few companies want just a photographer or just a graphic designer.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

I've started playing around shooting more video and expect to be doing more this year.  I did my own web sites for years and they always looked ok, but have now just gone with a more commercial site, it's easier to maintain and sell pictures from.  It's also the same web site one of my big clients uses.


----------



## 407370 (Feb 7, 2014)

> .....I shot photos and video, interviewed key people, came back to the office, wrote the article, edited the video, designed the graphics and published it on the website which I built.



The ability to do this to an acceptable standard is well within the grasp of the vast majority of people if a bit of effort is put into it.


----------



## runnah (Feb 7, 2014)

407370 said:


> > .....I shot photos and video, interviewed key people, came back to the office, wrote the article, edited the video, designed the graphics and published it on the website which I built.
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to do this to an acceptable standard is well within the grasp of the vast majority of people.




You'd be surprised. I've worked with many people over the years who have a single skill, which is fine but they are one who are struggling to find work. If you only do one thing you had better be the best around if you want to make a living.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

I'm still doing pretty well shooting sports, I have managed to keep several good clients that appreciate the skills and experience I bring to each event. Where I have lost work is in the smaller shoots, the ones that took an hour or less. Doing a few quick head shots or group, now the companies use someone on their staff with a camera.  I could start doing weddings as I have the skill set to do so, but I believe in professional courtesy and know a lot of wedding shooters, it comes down to not wanting to poach each others clients. Kind of an unwritten understanding. Where we run into problems are the ones that don't have any professional ethics at all. I get calls from clients asking about some photographer that contacted them and has offered to work for peanuts. They ask if I know them, I usually don't, but will find out who they are. I have a guy I use that I can call to cover for me if I can't do a shoot or need help and also know that he won't backstab me like others attempt to do.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 7, 2014)

Agree, diversify. Yes, you only get the big or difficult jobs now, not the $15 headshots.  But if you branch out to more areas and take the big or difficult jobs in several of them, you make up the lost ground.
That means stealing ground from colleagues and competing with other professionals, and somebody has to not make it.  But at least competing with other pros is tractable and feasible, unlike competing with people who are willing to do headshots for free for their coworkers.

Of all the photographers I know, only two make serious money and are expanding, and both are mindblowingly well diversified. The most successful one has a business that handles like 15 kinds of photography with portfolios in each, and each one has support services and contractors. Like for weddings she has makeup people and hair people and blah blah all one stop shopping. She's really good at making connections in the creative community too to keep tabs on all the people who can contract these services to offer better packages than other photographers.  That lady is so successful doing this that she recently bought not one but TWO whole houses entirely to use as customizable sets for boudoir and portraits and engagement and so forth, with themed rooms, etc.

All boils down to the same basic stuff: aiming at the big complicated jobs that obviously require skill and connections, and then doing this for every single basic kind of photography in the region, and ignoring little jobs in any of them. It is aggressive, it will put other photogs out of business, but it is a viable strategy.


+ being hip to what people expect and want in their pricing and contracts, and making the business work around that, not the other way around. As a consumer, this is what I would flat out demand from any photographer (since it's obviously a buyer's market). You try to be stingy with your images and copyrights and usages? I'm gone. You try to charge me huge amoutns for making prints from the images I already should have digitals of? No thanks.  Etc.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 7, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> So to pose a question, does it bother any of the full time photographers on this forum, or the weekend wedding photographers that have been in it for years that everyday in spite of the huge changes that they are seeing more and more unskilled people cutting in on their business.



I don't worry about it for the simple reason that unskilled photographers are not going to cut into my business. The level at which I operate is above that. I don't wear that on my sleeve, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. If someone wants to dribble into Best Buy and buy the latest version of the Rebel and then hang out a shingle and go into business, I honestly could not care any less than I already do. It absolutely does not matter to me.

Not an iota.

Personally, I don't believe that "the best years of photography have passed". If you really believe that, you should walk away now, because you're probably not cut out for the future...





> I don't need to hear the usual, "but they aren't as I am above that level" They aren't affecting my business at all, because the bottom line is that every day a tiny piece of work is being lost. Even if it is a $15 head shot that you might have done, add those up over the months and it does become a bigger piece.



Sorry, but you can't conveniently dismiss a reason you don't want to hear. I don't do $15.00 portraits. If someone really needs a portrait, and they can only afford to pay $15.00 for it, I'm more likely to do it for free than to take the fifteen bucks.

If rookies are negatively impacting your business, you need to step up your business before you're put out of business...


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 7, 2014)

I don't mind freelancing, but I prefer to try and freelance for publications instead of individuals. My area is over-saturated with family/wedding/children photographers (every area is but here the ratio of photographers to clients in only a few markets is INSANE), so I mostly try to focus on freelancing for local publications with whom I can relate such as the local newspaper, the college newspaper, the university alumni magazine, the local Red Cross, and I'm currently on staff in my college's marketing department.

Sure I'll have to figure out another way of surviving after I graduate, but I'm doing okay for right now. I only know one other person in the area who is a freelance editorial photographer, and he's really good, but he goes for the bigger fish and doesn't work much with local publications so that's helped a lot.

Idk. I keep thinking that I'm just going to have to find a corporate job or something in order to sustain myself, but meh, I guess I'll just find out when I get there - whether I have what it takes to succeed with this whole photography thing. I mean, it's not like I can do anything to change the climate of things. I just have to deal and adapt.

I freakin' hate video with a passion, though. I'd love to do it with a team that I'm not in charge of, but when someone asks me to shoot video for their music or of an event or something I'm just like


----------



## skieur (Feb 7, 2014)

Those that I know who were successful, changed careers in mid stream.  A friend started out as a photojournalist for a small religious newspaper but became the editor of an internal newspaper for Imperial Oil and then an executive troubleshooter.  A secretary I knew, became the head of the printing department for a large educational organization.  A photo tech who worked for me, left to run a tv studio for a large company and a second tech left to be in charge of a large caretaking staff.

The career advice was out there decades ago that in order to be successful, you might need to be prepared to have as many as 3 careers. "Adaptability to change" is the MOST important skill to have as well as being prepared.

It is not too late for some.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > So to pose a question, does it bother any of the full time photographers on this forum, or the weekend wedding photographers that have been in it for years that everyday in spite of the huge changes that they are seeing more and more unskilled people cutting in on their business.
> ...




If you honestly believe that photography is not being changed by the digital professional amateurs then you really have your head buried in the sand. I work at a very high level of photography, my clients aren't nickel and dime, they pay me what I ask to do the job.  Photography has changed and it has affected every single professional photographer that has been working in the business for more than 10-15 years. I talk to other professionals all the time, and they all same the thing.  

It's really great that your world has not been affected by any of this, consider yourself lucky, fortunate, whatever the reason, good for you. I'll put $15 in my pocket a hundred times, over shooting for free. But then I guess you are working at a much higher level that $1500 isn't worth putting in your pocket.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 7, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> If you honestly believe that photography is not being changed by the digital professional amateurs then you really have your head buried in the sand.



When did I say that photography isn't being changed?

Lemme' help ya' out, Chief: I didn't.

I said that "the best days of photography" aren't passed. You seem to believe otherwise.

Would you want to be bothered setting up for a single portrait every month for 100 months? I bet you wouldn't but, using your logic, it would make perfect sense to do so. If there were 100 people lined up waiting to give me $15.00 a pop, and I could get them all done in an afternoon, sure I'd do it. I'd have to set up once and break down once. I wouldn't want to do a separate set up and break down for each $15.00 portrait, and I don't think you would, either. That would be stupid...



> I work at a very high level of photography, my clients aren't nickel and dime, they pay me what I ask to do the job.  Photography has changed and it has affected every single professional photographer that has been working in the business for more than 10-15 years. I talk to other professionals all the time, and they all same the thing.



Again, I've not said that photography hasn't changed, and you'll die an old man before you're able to find where I have. It absolutely has changed. Has it changed for the better? I believe it has...



> It's really great that your world has not been affected by any of this, consider yourself lucky, fortunate, whatever the reason, good for you.



You seem to have a pretty myopic view regarding what you think I believe. 

Perhaps you could be reminded of the question you actually asked: 



> does it bother any of the full time photographers on this forum, or the  weekend wedding photographers that have been in it for years that  everyday in spite of the huge changes that they are seeing more and more  unskilled people cutting in on their business.



It doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother me at all.

You seem intent on making the argument that it should. 

Well, go ahead, Slick, I won't stop you...



> I'll put $15 in my pocket a hundred times, over shooting for free. But then I guess you are working at a much higher level that $1500 isn't worth putting in your pocket.



Will you set up and break down your lights and backdrops 100 times?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

You are quite correct in everything that you said. We obviously don't talk to any of the same photographers when the subject of the best years of photography comes up. I am hard pressed to find any that disagree. I believe that most of it has to do with how it has changed. Digital is the best and worst thing for photography, it has replaced the learning process and understanding of light, with a fully automatic point and shoot system that requires limited knowledge.  When you were working as a photographer 15-20 years ago did you not find that the business had fewer photographers and the calibre of photographers was higher? A lot of it had to do with what you had to learn to shoot well.

 Most of the photojournalists and sports photographers that I work with have also been in the business for over 25 years, so we share similar experiences. I don't work with any landscape or fine art photographers so I don't know anything has changed for them, I can only guess not to the same extent as it has with photojournalists.

As for the $15 head shots, I was using that as a simple example of shoots that have disappeared with the changes to photography.  

Why do you believe that photography is better now?


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 7, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> You are quite correct in everything that you said. We obviously don't talk to any of the same photographers when the subject of the best years of photography comes up. I am hard pressed to find any that disagree. I believe that most of it has to do with how it has changed. Digital is the best and worst thing for photography, it has replaced the learning process and understanding of light, with a fully automatic point and shoot system that requires limited knowledge.



See, that's where we disagree. I don't think it's replaced the learning process, and I don't insist on defining any change as "good" or "bad".

I learned to drive in a car that had an automatic transmission. I didn't need to know about how and why a clutch worked, but I was still able to learn how to drive. When I learned how to drive a standard, I didn't suddenly become a more enlightened driver. I simply learned another way to drive.

That's how I view photography...



> When you were working as a photographer 15-20 years ago did you not find that the business had fewer photographers and the calibre of photographers was higher? A lot of it had to do with what you had to learn to shoot well.



I wasn't working as a photographer 15-20 years ago. I was active duty Navy back then...



> As for the $15 head shots, I was using that as a simple example of shoots that have disappeared with the changes to photography.



You must not spend much time on Craig's List. Those types of gigs are everywhere.

But the fact that they're out there doesn't impact me...



> Why do you believe that photography is better now?



Well, two reasons:

1 - It's far more accessible to the masses 

-and-

2 - I don't view "photography" as some sort of exclusive club

With more people involved, manufacturers need to constantly develop new products. The amateur buying the beginner DSLR today could be the professional buying a 1Ds MK-Whatever tomorrow, and manufacturers will want to be able to accommodate him. 

How about internet forums? There are over 150,000 members on TPF. That's _insane_. There's never a shortage of topics to discuss. Those topics generate new ideas. Those ideas may find their way into the way someone shoots, or processes a photo, or in where he decides to buy a flash. 

I'm a member of a forum that has about 20 members. They haven't admitted a new member in almost two years. It's only slightly more dynamic than the "Amish Disco & Motorsports Forum".

I drove cross country last year. During that trip, I shot 4,678 photographs. You know how much money I spent getting those photos processed? Not a dime. If I was a professional photographer 20 years ago, I'd have been shooting film (as would just about everyone, I think). If I wanted to be able to shoot 4,678 photos, I would've needed to buy 130 rolls of 36 exposure film. If we figure a roll of film at five bucks, that would've been $650.00. Now, to get those rolls developed and printed, let's be conservative and say eight bucks per roll, which would be $1,040.00. 

Had I been shooting film, the total for my cross-country photos would've been $1,690.00.

Instead, I had a $40.00 CF card that I was able to reuse. I invested only my leisure time in processing photos. I don't have volumes of photo albums or slides in shoe boxes. I can put those 4,678 photos onto something only marginally bigger than a postage stamp.

Now, I don't know about you, but I certainly know which way _I _think is "better".

I recently had someone contact me about shooting a portrait for him. It was going to be a pretty simple deal, so I quoted him $275.00. He responded by saying that was outside his budget, so I dropped by quote to $250.00. He replied back (and our correspondence was always polite and professional) saying that a friend of his agreed to take the portrait for $50.00. I thanked him for contacting me and included a link to my website in my e-mail as a signature under my name.

A week later, he e-mailed me saying that he could go as high as $225.00. I agreed to that price (my bottom line for it would've been $175.00) and we did the shoot two days later. He explained that he hadn't looked at my website before that morning, and felt that the difference in quality was worth the extra money.

So, essentially, I went up against that cheap photographer and, while I lost the battle (seemingly losing the gig to the other guy), I won the war (shooting the client's portrait).

Cheap photographers don't concern me in the least...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 7, 2014)

When did you start shooting as a professional photographer?  Was it before or after everything became automatic? before autofocus, before digital? What do you shoot? it all matters. 

I guess this is all where we differ, I learned to drive on a standard, I raced cars for years, and am still involved in cars, I grew up around race cars, my Dad built and raced sprint cars before becoming a photographer. When it comes to photography I grew up with film, I still shoot like I'm using film, selective. I don't think about how much I would have spent on a road trip shooting, it doesn't matter.  This is where you believe that photography is better, because you can shoot thousands of photos and only spend $40 on a reusable card?  You bring it all down to dollars and cents.  Did you ever have to use a light meter trying to figure out how to be accurate shooting slides in the snow? How to focus on a car travelling 300mph at you, without autofocus.

All of what I have been saying is more of a rant, as I hear the same things over and over.  I sat down with a young photographer a few months ago, very talented, and hopefully with a bright future. I told him that I was a photo dinosaur and like the dinosaurs, became extinct, his response surprised me. He said that "That the photographers before he was born pointed a direction, it wasn't as easy, and he couldn't imagine shooting film or without autofocus" We were at a sporting event, and yes it is a little more difficult shooting moving objects than it is a tree, flower or sunset. I understood what he was saying, being able to shoot a single frame looking at it, deleting it, making corrections and trying again is much easier, that basically replaces a light meter.

Good for you that you stood your ground on the photo gig, 9 times out of 10 that doesn't happen, especially these days. The thing is, that didn't use to be the case, people would call, and you could say outright, it's going to be $500, there wasn't a guy on craigs list or any other list that they could go looking on to do it for $50.  The $500 could be negotiated and maybe you'd do it for $400, and to the client it was a great deal. This is how it has changed.

Like everything in the world, unless you really understand the past you don't always understand the present.

You really glazed over the reasons as to why photography is better now, more people own cameras and it's not a club, that's not a reason as to why it's better, that's just not having an answer. What makes photography better now? What makes people want to become professional photographers? that's really along the lines of the original question I asked in the first place.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 7, 2014)

I started around 2006.

But when I started shooting professionally means nothing. I learned photography on a Canon TLb. It doesn't get much more "manual" than that. Shooting professionally or not is hardly a metric to use in this discussion. 

And I glazed over nothing. Just as you wanted to dismiss the "They're not at my level" answer that you would certainly inevitably get, so do you dismiss the reasons I gave for why it's better. Now, you may not like or agree with those reasons; I really don't give a rat's ass. But instead of dismissing them, perhaps you could make even a lame attempt at refuting them.

I don't know anyone who's not concerned with how much something costs. You seem to think that saving over $1,600.00 isn't a valid reason. Well, you're the only guy I know who believes that, so I'll go ahead and assume that it's _you _who may not be thinking straight. Just because you wouldn't think about it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. To say it doesn't matter is BS, unless you've just got so much money you don't mind pissing it away needlessly.

Then again, if you had that kinda' jack, you wouldn't be whining about wanting to take $15.00 portraits.

How about you explain how no longer dealing with those things makes photography worse?

I'll remind you, again, of the questions you asked:



> ...does it bother any of the full time photographers on this forum, or the  weekend wedding photographers that have been in it for years that  everyday in spite of the huge changes that they are seeing more and more  unskilled people cutting in on their business



To that I answered "no". You're hardly in a position to suggest that my answer should be something else, or to to suggest that my response lacks merit, but you gave it the ol' college try nonetheless.

And then you asked this:



> Does it get frustrating or at times feel like you are wasting time trying to keep it going?



To that I also answered "no", and you seemed to take issue with that, too.

Look, if you're having a hard time hanging in there because of the changes which the development of photography has brought about, get out. Do something else. Bartending's fun. But if you're afraid that the photographers of tomorrow aren't going to ever learn how to use a light meter to shoot portraits in the snow, get over it. Hell, I know professional  photographers who've never seen seen snow.

The bottom line is that change is inevitable. People will always try to do more with less. That _used _to be a measure of efficiency. Now, according to you, it's something to be scorned and ridiculed.

I make my living with a digital camera. I shoot in Manual. I shoot in Auto. I get the job done. I have happy clients who pay me. They don't care if I can impress them by pushing a roll of Tri-X to 1600. That doesn't matter to them. That matters to other photographers. Once upon a time, I didn't know anything about that. Now, back then then, more experienced photographers couldn't jump on the internet and complain about photographers who knew less. So you know what one of them did? He taught me how to push a roll of Tri-X to 1600. Now, 35 years later, that's pretty much a useless little nugget of random information, and I'm hardly a better photographer because I know how to do it.

I haven't ran a roll of film through a camera since 1997. I know how to use a light meter. I know how to develop film. I know my way around a darkroom. I can drive a stick. I can do those things, but I don't _have _to. Rookie photographers who can get the job done without knowing the intricacies of what you and I learned 30 or 40 years ago _will _get the job done. You can either adapt to that, or you can walk around and complain about the new kids don't know what you know, and who will eventually overtake you because they're satisfying their clients instead of complaining about other photographers...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 8, 2014)

You're completely right, I have no argument against anything you said. I'm just a burned out old photographer trying to scrape together enough to carry on, living in the past glory of what once was. I will add that all the things that you did learn shooting and processing film does matter, regardless of what you think. The last rolls of film I ran though my old Canon F1's were covering the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. In three weeks I head to Sochi to cover the Paralympics, the first Olympic event I will shoot on digital. Everything I learned from the past shooting film is relevant. I learned how to shoot film without waste, I learned timing because I only had a limited amount of exposures. I'm not concerned about the young kids taking over, in fact, like my Dad who taught me and some of the best photojournalists in the world, I like to think that I can pass on what I have learned in the past 40 years to the next generation. Sadly too many don't care about the past, they all believe they already know everything.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 8, 2014)

I think part of the problem with shrinking departments in journalism is the whole consolidation thing. One person with a degree in journalism and a D3200 on auto mode can do what took a team in the past. That journalist can snap 400 pictures of a fire to get 5 good enough ones, whereas in the past, it took someone with some serious skill to get the exposure, composition, and depth of field just right on film, where each shot costs real money, and someone else would write the story.

I take product photos for my business. I'm not claiming to be a professional-put those pitchforks down. Yes, you. And the torch. And off my lawn-WATCH THE LILACS. Technically, they're products, and I take pictures of them. So yes, they are product photos, even if they look like they were taken by Michael J. Fox during an earthquake. Anyway, there's always going to be that kind of thing. There's always going to be photographic artists. There's always going to be sports, which aren't the easiest thing to photograph (I've tried, and due to self esteem issues, never posted). There will always be the people who want more than a MWAC (Mom with a Camera for those of you who don't know yet-google it) to shoot their wedding or their kids or even their car (I see a lot of this on car forums). Are these markets smaller now that MWACs will charge $400 for a wedding that a great photographer might charge $4,000 (what we paid ours) for? Absolutely. People are cheap, and that's a huge part of the problem.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 8, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I know how to use a light meter. I know how to develop film. I know my way around a darkroom. I can drive a stick.



Wait... you can drive a stick?  

[falling to my knees and pressing my face to the floor] - I'm not worthy!  I'm not worthy!   

Lol.. just trying to lighten it up a bit there big guy.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 8, 2014)

I kinda went a little overboard trying to make a point about how I see things and ended up taking it too personally, but when my career is being whittled down a little more every year I do get my back up. Steve I understand the points you have made and appreciate your opinion. We all have them. When I see stats that show photographers at US newspapers have seen a 43% decrease in jobs since 2000, I have reason to be a little more concerned than most. I believe the stats would be the same in Canada. Reuters stopped covering sports in North America, a client I spent 10 years shooting for, and has been laying off staffers and freelancers.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 8, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> You're completely right, I have no argument against anything you said. I'm just a burned out old photographer trying to scrape together enough to carry on, living in the past glory of what once was. I will add that all the things that you did learn shooting and processing film does matter, regardless of what you think. The last rolls of film I ran though my old Canon F1's were covering the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. In three weeks I head to Sochi to cover the Paralympics, the first Olympic event I will shoot on digital. Everything I learned from the past shooting film is relevant. I learned how to shoot film without waste, I learned timing because I only had a limited amount of exposures. I'm not concerned about the young kids taking over, in fact, like my Dad who taught me and some of the best photojournalists in the world, I like to think that I can pass on what I have learned in the past 40 years to the next generation. Sadly too many don't care about the past, they all believe they already know everything.



Living in the past is a sure-fire way to ruin.

I just had breakfast. When I was done I put my dishes in the dishwasher and started it. There were a couple of dishes in there from dinner last night, too; chicken. 

Now, I know that raw chicken leaves nasty stuff on whatever it touches. I know that I want to wash whatever it touches. Unfortunately, I don't know what temperature the water has to be to successfully kill the germs. But I know if I throw it into the dishwasher and hit "START", it'll come out clean and safe. I don't really care how it gets that way. I don't have to.

The first time I recorded in a "real" studio, it was on a Neve board that I'd have a difficult time fitting into the back of my truck, and it was a two-man lift. When we wanted to order pizza, we picked up one of those new-fangled  push-button telephones and ordered some pizzas. I would then go back, pick up my tuning fork, and retune my guitar for the next cut.

These days, I can download any one of a hundred programs and record an entire album on my phone. Hell, I don't even need a drummer. I can get one of those off the internet or the app store. With the touch of a single button, I can tell my phone to call the pizza place and order a pizza. I don't even have to know how to dial a phone. When I need to retune my guitar, I don't need to know that the A string should vibrate at a frequency of 440 hertz. I just hit the string until the display on the tuner app I downloaded turns green.

Now, 35 years ago, I'd need to know how to dial a phone, and I'd damn well better know to grab the tuning fork that's 440 Hz. I'd better know how to adjust levels on a board if I'm mixing. While their are differences, the ease of doing it today isn't diminished because it's easy. It's still viable music. Someone who listens to something I record today and likes it isn't going to suddenly _not _like it if they learn how easy it was for me to create. They're just going to like it because, at the end of the day, it's the final result that matters.

The old ways aren't inherently "better", they're just different...


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 8, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> ...but when my career is being whittled down a little more every year I do get my back up.



And that's kind of my point.

If you do nothing to adapt, your career will be whittled down into nothing. You need to alter how you do what you do to ensure that clients see a value in hiring you.

For me, I'll do what I need to do to keep working. Period. If that means not concerning myself with the "details" that I needed to know all those years ago, so be it. Instead of concerning myself with how the "kids" haven't learned what I learned, I'll concern myself with using what I've learned (and what they haven't) to give myself an edge over them...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 8, 2014)

I have adapted, I make changes all the time, in how I market myself, the way my web site is more business and less show off what I can do. I offer more to my clients and they are willing to pay me what I ask without question. I have picked up a new client for this year that will generate more income, largely due to a couple of new professional sports teams starting up this year and getting in with them from day one as their team photographer. I have talked with a client I've been with for over 10 years and suggested a different way to cover their events, that will also get me to Australia, Hawaii, California, Florida and Vancouver this year. What it cost me was a re-negotiated contract where I dropped my fees in order for them to send me on more shoots, filing photos into the wire service networks, iv'e offered them more for less.

I think growing up in a photographic family, with a Dad like I have, he taught me to always embrace the past and never forget it, or what I have learned. I still pull out some old tricks from the past that work for me simply because clients have never seen them before. The new world order of everything being computer and camera phone technology has replaced some of the basic areas that photographers have forgotten about, but are still used by my Dad and he constantly reminds me about them. It is no-tech ways to attract and impress clients.  So I do adapt and I have changed the way I approach things, and for the most part it works.  There is also the other side where people aren't interested in how things used to be done, even though they work and would be a better fit for their needs.  Trying to convince a potential client that is used to having amateurs constantly knocking on their doors offering to do things for free, or not enough to even cover their expenses does in fact make it more difficult, regardless of how good the photographer may be. 

I will say this about the past, having fewer photographers around made it easier to deal with a client, it was "the perception of owning a camera" that gave potential clients the idea he must be good if he can afford the gear. Now the perception is that he has a camera, big deal, everyone has a camera, so we'll just hire the cheapest one.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm not and never have been even close to a full time pro photographer, I almost majored in journalism but am glad I switched gears a long time ago. Following some of what's happening in sports and news photography etc. it seems to have been getting hard for photographers to continue to find work. I've read on a sports site I follow from time to time that photographers are getting undercut by people with cameras who underprice their work; they say that sometimes when a former client is getting nothing but crap then they come back to them wanting some decent photos... Still it seems to be newspapers firing their entire staffs more than opportunities opening up anywhere.

I remember talking to an NHL team photographer some years ago about the time Getty was coming into it, which seems now to be a monopoly at major league level; great for the teams I guess and an advantage for photographers could be they could work covering other events they wouldn't be doing working for one team; a disadvantage that they could get a photo that could be reused and relicensed and I don't think they see the extra profit from that. Maybe they didn't anyway, depended on who they were shooting for and the contract they had etc. but I remember reading about that too - contracts working more and more to the photographers' disadvantage.

I think work in all types if media isn't necessarily good these days. In my area newspapers seem to be hanging in there but radio has been particularly hard hit and is mostly owned and programmed out of state (which makes for hardly a decent station to listen to). I know at least three guys thru local hockey that were out of their jobs in radio and only one is even working in their field in PR anymore. 

What I hope runs the wannabees out of photography (well at least some of them) is that maybe eventually the economy will gradually continue to improve and everybody will get tired of looking at crappy pictures and the standard of professional media outlets will start to go back up. I mean, I think there is still some demand for good sports photographs but there seem to be a lot of publications willing to settle, and use lowers standards of what's acceptable. 

I'm glad if nothing else that when I have done some local hockey that it's been at a lower level of sports where we're too small time for big media outlets! And that photography is something I can do and enjoy it and don't need to rely on it financially. I hope things at some point turn around and improve, and adapting as best as you can to what's workable these days I guess is all someone can do. 

And Steve it isn't free... a photographer needs a camera, media cards, batteries, a back up camera, maybe a laptop for work, a computer, an internet hookup payment (although those for most people aren't used exclusively for photography), upgrades in equipment, etc. etc. And your expertise, which cost something in time and money (equipment) no matter how you learned and maintain your skills and knowledge base.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 9, 2014)

picked up the photos earlier. Guy at the walmart photo boothe that served me was a photographer. He works at walmart. He has been a photographer since 1968. Told me he started on the 4's and in black and white. was a apprentice for two years before he made a dime. Started with weddings, worked his way up from there. Five decades later, he went to retire. Couldn't afford it. He works at walmart three days a week now in the photo center to help make ends meet. But he says he likes it. Because he can help people with their photography. I would guess I have considerably more than he does and haven't spent my working life to this point in photography. But I don't look down on him for his choices or working at walmart. Im fascinated by him, and what he must know that I don't. Just listening to him for ten minutes, he captivated me. The knowledge and experiences. 

It went through a transition, photography. imo. similar to the reference I made to printing in the is the dslr dead thread. It was more art, apprenticeship, hand craft if you will. Now it is a four thousand dollar camera and auto mode. Digital images and photoshop. it don't mean jack any more. And people get into it to make a buck, because it is now so easy. you don't actually have to know photography to buy a expensive camera and push the button and get a good image. Because it is so much easier, and common, it is being devalued. As it should be. Because it isn't the same thing it was fifty years ago and doesn't have the same value. IT isn't the final product, that gives the value. Everyone seems to think it is, but a good portion of that is b.s. Anyone that knows antiques, collectables, things that hold value. Know it isn't the final product. It is the craftsmanship, rarity of it that gives real value.  It is what it takes to produce the final product. The easier something is to make or recreate, the more common it is, the more efficient its process, the less it is worth.  PRetty much how all commodities are.  That's capitalism.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 9, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Everyday we read that newspapers are dumping entire photo departments, long time photo companies are closing and yet more and more people are turning to photography to make an extra buck on the weekends. We see that the area the new photographers are targeting are weddings, they believe it to be the quickest way to make money.
> 
> People still have dreams of becoming photographers for a variety of reasons, and I understand most of them. I talk to a lot of very talented young photographers that tell me the best years of photography have passed and yet they are still out there trying, and most are struggling, where 10 years ago these guys would be looking at staff jobs almost anywhere. These are the ones that went to school, learned photography, and that I consider some of the best young photographers out there, and yet they find it difficult just making ends meet. I know that this is happening in every city in every country. The outlook is bleak at best for most.
> 
> ...


Have you ever considered painting? Don't laugh. I took up painting about eight years back. Im not very good at it. But it feels good to do it. I personally really enjoy it. Going from painting, to photos, well kind of feels like a step down. well, unless it is a artistic photo. Regular photos seem more like a copy. Painting a original, hands on. Photo a copy.  And I don't even do real photography I use digital. Data images. No real talent there I even have a auto mode if I want to. so I feel like a cheap whore. Try painting. I actually have to buy some more canvases speaking of which. im going to put that on my too do list. But really, its relaxing and allows you to use your creative side. And even if your paintings suck they will be worth more than most photographs because most photographs these days are worthless.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm not a pro and know little about the photo industry. But I was in business for 20 years that ended. So I know something about success and failure. Who doesn't? But it seems to me that while certain parts of the photo industry have been effected by quantity of photographers , people who call themselves pros, there are other parts that still required a heavy skill set. And know how to niche themselves and make contacts with people who will give them business. 


I'm thinking of the magazines that have ad's for travel, jewelry, clothes, etc. Someone is taking pictures of equipemt in the B and H Photo catalog. Who's shooting those fancy glamor and clothes shots and cover shots? I'm sure the editors of Bazaar don't hire out to the cheapest. They have their contractors, including photos companies and ad agencies, that do work for them. They may bid out but it's only the professional companies that they'll accept bids from. What about all those annual statement brochures by public corporations. They have industrial photos as well a portraits. A guy owning a Rebel isn't taking their shots. 

These are economically hard times in addition to changing photographic times. I know architects with two post graduate degrees who are out of work. Difficult economic times always create a culling effect. Maybe the best thing do is spend most of your time visiting prospective clients, contacting them on the phone and using social connections to get in the door. Get off this forum and spend the time prepping a resume and updating your portfolio for presentation. 

If the doors you get into are the type that only buy the cheapest, you better change your business plan. If you're not best at selling yourself, a different skill set to be sure that snapping the shot, then maybe you have to look for companies that would hire you to satisfy their customers. These are hard times for a lot of people in a lot of industries. I hope everyone here can see it through.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyday we read that newspapers are dumping entire photo departments, long time photo companies are closing and yet more and more people are turning to photography to make an extra buck on the weekends. We see that the area the new photographers are targeting are weddings, they believe it to be the quickest way to make money.
> ...



I've spent almost as long in photography as I have using an airbrush. I paint a lot, was in an art program though high school, and always take a pad and pens when I travel.  It's pretty relaxing. These days I am doing replica professional football helmets as a hobby.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> I'm not a pro and know little about the photo industry. But I was in business for 20 years that ended. So I know something about success and failure. Who doesn't? But it seems to me that while certain parts of the photo industry have been effected by quantity of photographers , people who call themselves pros, there are other parts that still required a heavy skill set. And know how to niche themselves and make contacts with people who will give them business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every field has been affected in some way, some more than others. It comes down to what people perceive to be the easiest to do, which in reality are some of the hardest areas, sports and weddings.  I exclude the high fashion, products, food, that area which requires a lot more gear and a different skill set, working with more complicated lighting setups etc. People like the idea of weddings as it's an easy way to make big money quickly, it is also a quick way to screw up a photo shoot that leaves very little room for mistakes.  Shooting sports, because there are so many different levels is easier but becomes more difficult as you more up the levels.  The weekend photographers that shoot kids sports generally can come away with some nice pictures of their kids, some do basic setups for team pictures, it's not difficult if they have a basic understanding of the camera.  Once you move into shooting at the college and professional levels there is no room for mistakes, everything moves faster working around more photographers, bigger players, the level of knowledge changes.  In other areas where they may have been only a few good photographers working in a smaller city doing all the portraits, weddings etc, and doing quick well, have now found that there are now 100 willing to shoot for less.  They can change how they market themselves, adapt to the changes in technology but in the end they are still having to compete against 100 new photographers, even if 90 of them are hacks, that still leaves 10 good enough to do the job well, this is where the competition begins.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 10, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Every field has been affected in some way, some more than others. It comes down to what people perceive to be the easiest to do, which in reality are some of the hardest areas, sports and weddings.  I exclude the high fashion, products, food, that area which requires a lot more gear and a different skill set, working with more complicated lighting setups etc. People like the idea of weddings as it's an easy way to make big money quickly, it is also a quick way to screw up a photo shoot that leaves very little room for mistakes.  Shooting sports, because there are so many different levels is easier but becomes more difficult as you more up the levels.  The weekend photographers that shoot kids sports generally can come away with some nice pictures of their kids, some do basic setups for team pictures, it's not difficult if they have a basic understanding of the camera.  Once you move into shooting at the college and professional levels there is no room for mistakes, everything moves faster working around more photographers, bigger players, the level of knowledge changes.  In other areas where they may have been only a few good photographers working in a smaller city doing all the portraits, weddings etc, and doing quick well, have now found that there are now 100 willing to shoot for less.  They can change how they market themselves, adapt to the changes in technology but in the end they are still having to compete against 100 new photographers, even if 90 of them are hacks, that still leaves 10 good enough to do the job well, this is where the competition begins.



I get where your coming from - I'm not a pro photographer, never had a desire to become one, and am quite happy with my amateur status.  For me it's a hobby, not a career.  But I spend a good many years in the IT field.  At first if you had the knowledge you were fairly coveted - then pretty soon everybody and their brother it seemed was hanging out a shingle and charging a lot less.  Granted a lot of them couldn't find their keesters in the dark with both hands, a flashlight and a map but it still had a pretty drastic impact on those of us who could.

The glut of folks who would fix your computer or build you a website or whatever for dirt cheap prices continued to increase, and while it was bad enough that they made you do a whole ton of extra work trying to market yourself and explain to people that if they wanted quality work they really needed to spend the extra, what was worse is the effect they had on the market as a whole.  Pretty soon it got to the point where telling people you were a computer tech or consultant or whatever term you wanted to use got to be almost akin to telling them you were a sleazy used car salesmen, or a con artist of some sort.  

Folks got so gun shy after paying 2, 3, or maybe 5 other completely unreliable know nothing amateurs representing themselves as pros that they just absolutely would not believe that you were a professional and wouldn't do the same thing to them that the other guys had done.   It took a ridiculous amount of effort to establish a rapport and build the trust of the client to the point where you could get a halfway decent business relationship established, and all it took was for one thing to go wrong during that process, even if it wasn't your fault, and that relationship would be totally ruined at the outset.  The clients for the most part had zero trust, and that's a pretty rough place to start from.

So yup, I get where your coming from.  Unfortunately there just isn't anything that can be done about the cause, all you can try to do is deal with the end result.


----------



## gacop (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm not a pro or really even an amateur, I just enjoy taking photos.  I've really tried to learn my camera by what ever means I've had available, such as reading, tutorials, etc.  I know a lady that earns part-time money doing weddings and knows nothing about her camera but knows photoshop.  When I was brand new to photography and first met her I began talking with her about f stops, aperture, you know different setting and how to take certain shots.  She said " I don't know about the technical stuff, I just take the picture and fix it on photoshop.  Like I said I'm not in a business I just enjoy photography, so no one is taking money out of my pocket but this bothered me.


----------



## JBrown (Feb 10, 2014)

I have a confession, Im part of the problem. 

About a year ago me and a friend at work picked up photography for fun and the possibility of side work. I love photography as it gives me a creative outlet.

Fast forward to today I dont do any paying work and gravitated towards nature photography simply because its on my schedule and i dont have to deal with anyone else. It has remained a hobby for me. My friend on the other hand has become what most of you hate, the $50 photographer. Ganted she isnt the best, but she did lots of cheap shoots and has some experience now and is average.

Anyways its time for me to get engagement photos and I look in town at a pros work ive seen and is great. Wants $ 400 for the shoot. My friend has raised her rates to a whopping $75. I hate to say it but i chose the $75. She can produce a decent enough image (only need one from a whole shoot) and the other is just way to much money.

So with that said, as someone who appreciates good photography and knows the differrence I still chose the lesser because financially it made much more sense. The wedding itself is a different matter.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2014)

You're not part of the problem at all.  Your friend is filling a void, unfortunately this void has affected the more expensive photographer. Chances are she has a full time job and can afford to charge $75, it's basically free money for her and I doubt that it is being declared as income. Your friend is part of a problem that isn't about to change.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 10, 2014)

JBrown said:


> I have a confession, Im part of the problem.
> 
> About a year ago me and a friend at work picked up photography for fun and the possibility of side work. I love photography as it gives me a creative outlet.
> 
> ...



There is no problem for you as long as you accept the quality of the photos your friend produces for you.  There is no problem for your friend (it seems), she is putting money in her pocket and even been able to raise her rates.


----------



## JBrown (Feb 10, 2014)

When I say im part of the problem, i mean in regards to photography as a profession. I willingly accepted the lesser work because of how cheap it was and know its not a rate someone could actually live off of.

With that said financials drive everything in this world and the reality is most people with a little training can take a DSLR and get a decent pic. That fact alone and the advances in body and lenses are crushing the industry.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 10, 2014)

JBrown said:


> Fast forward to today I dont do any paying work and gravitated towards nature photography simply because its on my schedule and i dont have to deal with anyone else. It has remained a hobby for me. My friend on the other hand has become what most of you hate, the $50 photographer. Ganted she isnt the best, but she did lots of cheap shoots and has some experience now and is average.



I still don't see how this is part of the problem more than filling a void.


----------



## runnah (Feb 10, 2014)

Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 10, 2014)

runnah said:


> Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.



No shirt,no shoes, no service.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 10, 2014)

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.


----------



## runnah (Feb 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.
> ...




_"Yo, tweet them deetz."_
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## MGRPhoto (Feb 10, 2014)

Not a pro but I know quite a few. The "old timers" that worked in a studio for years now use it as a secondary income or don't do it all anymore. The friends I have that are thriving are the ones who build complete marketing strategies for small/medium businesses. Everything from the company photography and marketing materials to building and hosting their websites. The photography aspect probably doesn't even take up half of their job at this point though. However they are making 10x what they were as just photographers. Literally 10x. There is still a market out there for the high end portrait/wedding guy but it's shrinking and it _will _be gone sooner than later. In a few more years the D3300 type cameras will be able fake all the skill the photographer lacks and people won't even hire photographers for weddings. The bride/groom will setup their event page on the social media site and their guests will just upload the shots they took to their social media page and that social media company will automatically generate an album for them and give them an option to buy a wedding book or leave the album digitally online.... damn I think I just came up with my million dollar idea! Don't you guys go stealin' it now!

And sports photographers are going to be extinct sooner than later as well. Soon we'll have robotic cameras on a wire that will get all the shots they need.


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 10, 2014)

I dont know about anyone else, but for me its been funneling my career into various niche markets. 

My landscape photography I went high end fine art, limited edition prints and all expensive. 

For my stock, its all hard to get landscape images, there are many photographers out there but not many will carry 10 lbs of gear up to 14,000 ft in the Sierras to get a shot. 

For when I was a staff photographer it was all hard to access places with aircraft, very little competition. 

Anyways my thoughts are you should embrace the change and use your hard earned skills and the new technology to advance the art and do things no one else has done. Dwelling on the negative is only holding you back.


----------



## skieur (Feb 10, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Agree, diversify. Yes, you only get the big or difficult jobs now, not the $15 headshots. But if you branch out to more areas and take the big or difficult jobs in several of them, you make up the lost ground.
> That means stealing ground from colleagues and competing with other professionals, and somebody has to not make it. But at least competing with other pros is tractable and feasible, unlike competing with people who are willing to do headshots for free for their coworkers..



Not necessarily stealing ground from colleagues and competing with other professionals, IF you can create a niche area that fits with your skill set.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 10, 2014)

I solved the problem for myself by deciding never to shoot anything I wouldn't shoot for free.
It may be I don't have the skills to be a for-pay photographer, but I also don't have the interest and don't see making money as any measure of how good I am.

I was strongly affected by a definition I read of amateur versus professional that went like this, approximately.

_An amateur is someone who works on his/her skills and abilities, doing what has been done before and sees as an end the perfect execution of what other people have already done.
A professional is one who uses skills to go on, to advance the art in some way._

So I am working on being a professional in that sense and totally ignoring amateur status.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 10, 2014)

It's been an interesting discussion.  I can't help but draw an analogy with the competition that exists in the natural world.  Any given environment has a biota (fancy word for animals, plants, and single-celled organisms) that is optimized (more or less) for the food sources and conditions in that biosphere.  If the environment is stable, there is a biological drive for more specialization, allowing the successful organisms a higher efficiency at converting food sources to reproduction.  If the environment is unstable, then the successful organisms are the generalists, who can more effectively adapt to the changing conditions (think rats). If the environment is "evolving", then dedicated specialists tend to become extinct, and are replaced by less-particular generalists.  However, as some ecological niches disappear, new ones open up and offer opportunities for species that can move into that new niche.  If the niche lasts more than a few generations, then specialization again becomes the dominant driver.

Our photographic environment is changing with the tools of imaging undergoing their own technological evolution.  The "consumption" and "use" of the images is changing, and as such, the importance of various attributes also changes.  Simply put, it's nature's way of keeping us on our toes.  We may call it societal evolution, or economic imperative, but the parallels to biology are quite strong.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Every field has been affected in some way, some more than others. It comes down to what people perceive to be the easiest to do, which in reality are some of the hardest areas, sports and weddings. I exclude the high fashion, products, food, that area which requires a lot more gear and a different skill set, working with more complicated lighting setups etc. People like the idea of weddings as it's an easy way to make big money quickly, it is also a quick way to screw up a photo shoot that leaves very little room for mistakes. Shooting sports, because there are so many different levels is easier but becomes more difficult as you more up the levels. The weekend photographers that shoot kids sports generally can come away with some nice pictures of their kids, some do basic setups for team pictures, it's not difficult if they have a basic understanding of the camera. Once you move into shooting at the college and professional levels there is no room for mistakes, everything moves faster working around more photographers, bigger players, the level of knowledge changes. In other areas where they may have been only a few good photographers working in a smaller city doing all the portraits, weddings etc, and doing quick well, have now found that there are now 100 willing to shoot for less. They can change how they market themselves, adapt to the changes in technology but in the end they are still having to compete against 100 new photographers, even if 90 of them are hacks, that still leaves 10 good enough to do the job well, this is where the competition begins.
> ...



The people who screwed up the Obamacare website got paid $500 million.  Obviously not for what they knew but who.  Selling yourself is 90% of business.  The photos will take care of themselves.


----------



## bratkinson (Feb 11, 2014)

100 or so years ago, George Eastman endeavored and tremendously succeeded when he put photography into the hands of amateurs with point and shoot Kodak box cameras.  This gave rise to the Brownies, later the Instamatics, then the point and shoot digital cameras, and now, surprisingly good cell phone cameras for free. 

 At the same time, 'high end' photography - eg, photography for hire - has gotten incredibly easy to accomplish as DSLR equipment and lenses continue to drop in price.  What that has done is make quality images available for less cost to the photographer and the customer.  While the knowledgeable, experienced, professional photographer won't be going away any time soon, the 'low hanging fruit' (a term often used in big business) has gone the way OK cellphone shots and OK point and shoot shots with a DSLR for a probably below-actual-cost price.  So what's that leave?  An ever dwindling market share for a growing number of professional and would-be professional photographers that make their living with a camera.

As the Detroit auto industry found out years ago, it's change, transform, adapt, or get out of the business.  Some large companies have bought non-related businesses with varying success.  Others have just gone bust.

For what it's worth, in my own experience as a mainframe computer consultant.  In the past 15 years or so, the number of mainframes has dwindled significantly.  Although I became quite knowledgeable in the PC world, without 'certification', nobody wants an old geezer.  Besides, the pay for servers and networking is less than 1/2 of what I was making working in mainframes.  Fortunately, I was financially able at the time to retire early, while still young.  I've since gone to work outside the computer business to keep busy.  Adapt or die.  And so it goes...


----------

