# The Changing Photography Industry



## Jeff Colburn (Jun 15, 2010)

If you want to read an interesting New York Times article about the changes in the photography industry, go here For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path - NYTimes.com

And to read some great comments on the article, go here Pros and Amateurs Debate: Is Photography in Trouble? - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

Have Fun,
Jeff


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 15, 2010)

Some of the article is valid and some is BS.

I'm opening a studio later this year and, believe me, if the research we did was not positive we wouldn't be spending the kind of money we are. There is still plenty of money to be made in the photo industry. The fact that the money may not be in the same place today as it was yesterday is nothing new. Industries are always changing in some ways and photography is not exempt.

Right now the sector that is gearing up to hurt quite a bit is the retail photography market with Joe and Jane Blow down the street going pro after owning a camera for about six months. Next in line for the hurt is the editorial market.

But the commercial markets are pretty safe. I say markets because there are a lot of different types of commercial photography. A lot of them, nobody on this forum has even heard of. And if they don't know about them, they won't try and get into them. Not to mention that the high end markets are not about to be trusted into the hands of pseudo pros.

The times they are always a-changing and so is the photo business. Adapt or die.

Then again life goes in circles and if you check again in a few years, you probably will find the amateurs out of the loop when people get tired of paying for crap photos.

This kind of article should not scare anyone from going into the business. It should however remind everyone that photography for money is a business and should be treated as such. Do market analysis, etc before getting into whatever.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 15, 2010)

Yeah...good article, and the follow-up discussion had some very diverse points of view. One of the most tragic though was comment #24, from a very pompous "professional" photographer who said he practiced daily, and who felt bad when he missed a moment at a wedding. I visited his web site, and saw three of the most horrible, amateurish, crappy photos I have ever seen called "professional".

Pros and Amateurs Debate: Is Photography in Trouble? - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

Check it out...post 24, then visit the web site and click on the links.


----------



## rpm (Jun 15, 2010)

interesting mix of views. 

i do find it amusing how amateurs are being criticized for not knowing technique or have any foundations in photography. i agree with what what reader said that while there are numerous of photographic work on flickr or on the net for that matter that is for the most part 'good enough' or 'so-so' but there are gems that are found amongst the mediocrity from amateurs and not professionals. 

i think the pros just need to rethink their business plans and restructure themselves with the changing market but in the end of the day there will always be a need for those with experience, knowledge, creativity and skill, whether they're called pros or amateurs depends completely on how they market themselves.  

but also I must admit, I am from Mozambique, living in South Africa and I guess one thing I have noticed is the lack of saturation in certain markets its easier to make it in than others. im not sure how it is but here I am not aware of many pros (Moz) but i know a number of friends who are interested in photography who capture amazing images. 

while people are rethinking their business structures, i also feel they should reevaluate the preconceptions that are associated with the terms 'amateur' and 'professional' - as Darrel pointed out, numb 24 did not have much that struck me.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 15, 2010)

rpm said:


> i do find it amusing how amateurs are being criticized for not knowing technique or have any foundations in photography.



And you are right to be amused. Pro only means one thing: that the photographer is getting paid. It has nothing to do with quality and all to do with business.


----------



## rpm (Jun 15, 2010)

^^ agreed


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 15, 2010)

rpm said:


> ^^ agreed



I am good but I have no problem saying that I have some amateur friends who are much better than I am. The difference between us is that they are scared to get into it full time, they are not very good at business, or they are not interested at all. They just enjoy it as a hobby and that's 100% fine. To each his/her own.

The amateurs today have a shot at selling because of how the market is going but they will not get paid much because editors are not searching flicker so as to pay pro rates. Which, I think, means few of the good ones will go full time. Those guys are good in part because they invested time into the art but they also invested in good gear. They know the cost of photography and they'll see very little return and they'll go the safe way. They'll keep the day job.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 15, 2010)

The business of photography has been about business and not so much photography for decades.  About the time Large Format was supplanted by Medium Format IMO.  

The difference now is that where there has always been room for technicians before due to the complexity of getting an acceptable image on paper.  The engineers have gotten into the game now and have taken that away.  Which leaves people who are driven by the artistic aspect, the generally social types who are also people who want to nail down history by capturing it and business types who are looking for something to do that they enjoy.  (to list a few)

One thing that "Art" schools have is that the artists already know that to be successful they have to have a brand and that brand is themselves.  Something that anyone wanting to "make it" in photography is going to have to get.

If you want to get by in photography you can't sell your work, you are going to have to sell yourself.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jun 15, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Yeah...good article, and the follow-up discussion had some very diverse points of view. One of the most tragic though was comment #24, from a very pompous "professional" photographer who said he practiced daily, and who felt bad when he missed a moment at a wedding. I visited his web site, and saw three of the most horrible, amateurish, crappy photos I have ever seen called "professional".
> 
> Pros and Amateurs Debate: Is Photography in Trouble? - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Check it out...post 24, then visit the web site and click on the links.


some interesting shots, but I think he loves his photoshop too much.


----------

