# Being a Pro Photographer Isn't What It Used To Be



## JimMcClain

A year ago last August, Reuters fired all its No. American sports photographers. Apparently, that wasn't the end of it.

Excerpt:


			
				Gannon Burgett said:
			
		

> Earlier this week, more members of the photography staff at Thomson Reuters were let go in the multi-national media company’s ongoing effort to downsize and focus its workforce, especially in the imaging department.



Read the whole article: Reuters Layoffs Continue as the Company Continues to Rework Its Photography Department

So, I guess becoming a freelance photographer for an organization like Reuters is off my bucket list. 

Jim


----------



## bratkinson

Unfortunately, in todays business world, "Employee" is the equivalent of a 4-letter word.  Why pay someone a salary; vacation, sick, and medical/vision/dental benefits; travel expenses; etc, when all that's needed these days is to either purchase a couple of sports photos from some other company that has the staff, or, have fans in the stadium email photos taken with their cell phones?  Oh, and don't forget the asset acquisition costs, depreciation, insurance, etc for the camera(s) and lenses used...typically all high priced gear. 

The idea of USA Today Sports Images getting -paid- for their photos makes them money.  They may even turn each photographer on the payroll into a 'profit center' complete with quotas/goals of 'sold' pictures and bonuses paid thereon, blah...blah...blah...That way, the not-so-great photographers on the staff can get laid off as not making 'goals'.

Welcome to big business 101...cut costs, increase profits, increase dividends, increase executive bonuses, ad nauseum


----------



## imagemaker46

Reuters dropping all their experienced and skilled photographers to go with  part time photographers to cover sports wasn't the beginning.  Years ago Canadian Press wire service started dropping some of their staff and then using them as freelancers, this way they didn't have to pay any benefits.  It is the nature of the business world now.  Many of the photographers affected are my friends and in many cases what they lost in freelance work from Reuters was a more than half of their income.  On the other side the US Today/presswire photographers don't have the same skills, and are paid far less, and in a lot of cases, aren't full time photographers so they can afford to work for less.

It all has come down to money, that's all.


----------



## photoguy99

Here's a serious question, imagemaker, and I don't even pretend to know the answer.

Has it gotten substantively easier in the last decade or two to churn out a basic level of acceptable/useful sports photos?

I can think of some changes that might make a difference. But I'm not in the biz, so I don't know if there's actually a difference, nor of it's substantive.


----------



## imagemaker46

The experienced and skilled sports photographers are still turning out the same high end images they have always put out.  What has changed is that because there are a lot more photographers that have access to better gear the number of sports images has increased, in the majority of cases, they are considered acceptable.  The local Jr hockey team here has two team photographers, they are both using similar gear to me, they charge $50 per game, only one gets the $50, if they both show up they split it.  The images they produce are acceptable, some are pretty good, but they are laced with technical flaws, a little soft, poor crops, colours are off, crooked ice, I could go on.  I went out and shot a game they were at, my images were far better.  I sent a few to the team, and they wanted to use mine over the team photographers, I said no.  If they want to consider using me next season I offered a proposal, and it was turned down, with the reason, we're happy with what we get already and it wouldn't be worth your while.  I had not even discussed money, or what else I could offer them but better images.  The fact that they were happy with "acceptable" images was all that mattered.

So to answer your question, it has become easier to produce acceptable images, only because people have lowered their own standards as to what is acceptable.   Some of what I see online is garbage, even by "acceptable" standards, but they are still being used.  It's not always about the money, but that is a factor these days.


----------



## bribrius

out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.


----------



## Gary A.

While 'corporate' has always been profit oriented ... but now seems to exceed a fair and reasonable profit and has become 'greed' oriented. The internet has seriously and significantly fragmented the advertising dollar usually reserved ... make that guaranteed to the print media.

With reduced revenues and corporate demands of ... say ... 30% profit margins (without regards to product quality) ... something has got to give. And, typically it starts with the photo staff. There is a mindset at most news organization that the word is mightier than the art ... propagated by the editors, of which 99% started as reporters. Studies have proven that the image is remembered longer and in greater detail than the printed word. But I digress. I think with the explosion of digital photography, the ease of capture and reproduction, has greatly lowered the valued of photography.



bratkinson said:


> ... The idea of USA Today Sports Images getting -paid- for their photos makes them money.  They may even turn each photographer on the payroll into a 'profit center' complete with quotas/goals of 'sold' pictures and bonuses paid thereon, blah...blah...blah...That way, the not-so-great photographers on the staff can get laid off as not making 'goals'.
> 
> Welcome to big business 101...cut costs, increase profits, increase dividends, increase executive bonuses, ad nauseum



It has always ... sorta ... been that way. Editors have always measured a reporters/photogs worth by "scoops" and every single day will compare your story/photos to the competitions. Even in war zones, even when you're getting your butt shot off, Editors will chastise you for missing a story or photo op. If you miss enough, if you're out-scooped by the competition enough times ... you're gone. It is very competitive at the big papers. But on the flip side, in the old days when print was making tons of money, after a decade or so of hard work, the pressure becomes less, you've paid your dues and less is expected, easier assignments, easier shifts, no midnight calls, more money, et al. When you have a decade + under your belt and you hit 50+ years ... the paper will take care of you and you become semi-retired and you'll start your day with a cup of crappy coffee and working the daily crossword puzzle in ink, chatting with other 50+-ers.


----------



## KmH

Digital has fomented a golden age of photography.

There are more photos being made now than ever before, and with the Internet, sharing those photos is easier than ever.
Digital photography has lowered the bar for what is generally and commercially considered a 'good' photograph. 
Photography users now hire people to comb the photo sharing web sites for the kind of images they want.
They contact the amateur photographer about using the image knowing the amateur has no clue how much value their photograph has.

Some think the Internet is already starting to fade, with phone Apps taking over as the way to advertise.


----------



## fotomonkey

imagemaker46 said:


> The experienced and skilled sports photographers are still turning out the same high end images they have always put out.  What has changed is that because there are a lot more photographers that have access to better gear the number of sports images has increased, in the majority of cases, they are considered acceptable.  The local Jr hockey team here has two team photographers, they are both using similar gear to me, they charge $50 per game, only one gets the $50, if they both show up they split it.  The images they produce are acceptable, some are pretty good, but they are laced with technical flaws, a little soft, poor crops, colours are off, crooked ice, I could go on.  I went out and shot a game they were at, my images were far better.  I sent a few to the team, and they wanted to use mine over the team photographers, I said no.  If they want to consider using me next season I offered a proposal, and it was turned down, with the reason, we're happy with what we get already and it wouldn't be worth your while.  I had not even discussed money, or what else I could offer them but better images.  The fact that they were happy with "acceptable" images was all that mattered.
> 
> So to answer your question, it has become easier to produce acceptable images, only because people have lowered their own standards as to what is acceptable.   Some of what I see online is garbage, even by "acceptable" standards, but they are still being used.  It's not always about the money, but that is a factor these days.


I've seen this as well. It's actually pretty amazing what is deemed "acceptable" these days. I kept hearing, "you have to set yourself apart" but how do you do that when the client doesn't care? I saw parents fawning over pictures that were so blurry you'd only know it was their kid because you kid almost make out the jersey number.

Likewise, people want something for nothing. I was talking to a now defunct minor league hockey team about shooting their games. Rather than hiring me per se, they offered to "pay" me with a parking pass and press access. That's it. They'd own all the images. All I'd get to do is see the game for free. They get all the benefit and I do all the work. Sadly, there are people that would accept a deal like that to get their foot in the door which just makes it harder for everyone else down the road.


----------



## bribrius

well. they can always all go shoot weddings, but they better learn up on video because it is becoming the new wedding norm.


----------



## runnah

The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.

The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.

Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.


----------



## imagemaker46

I don't blame digital cameras for the demise in paying jobs, it certainly hasn't helped in some cases.  It's just a changing time in media.  I know people will always argue this, but I think the best days for being a pro photographer have passed.


----------



## Gary A.

runnah said:


> The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.
> 
> The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.
> 
> Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.


The clear majority of newspaper revenues come from advertising not sales. The sales revenues barely covered delivery costs. Sales was one of the methods to quantify circulation for advertising purposes.

This is a tough call ... I blame digital photography for lowering the standards of professional photography and maybe even photography in general.

Craigslist is the single torpedo which has cause the USS Los Angeles Times to take on serious water.

Prior to digital photography, in the genre of news/photojournalism, if you didn't have a darkroom or access to a darkroom, you didn't shoot news. There were very few darkrooms in the general population and most cameras were point & shoot. Back in the film only days an interchangeable lens camera was a unique luxury for the general population. Today, nearly every household in the first world has a digital camera (cell phone counts) and a access to a computer. Custom photography used to be reserved only for the pro and very serious amatuer, but now it is easily and cheaply available to nearly all.

By shear dilution, digital photography has affected the money making potential that was the darkroom.


----------



## photoguy99

It's not that sales is "one of the methods" it's that circulation is actually, legitimately, down. This, presumably, affects the prices that can be charged for ads.

The craigslist point is well made, though. The classifieds pulled the train at many/most/all newspapers. And they're just dead. To first order, that right there is the cause of the demise of newspapers. Craigslist isn't the only reason classifieds are dead, but it's the major one.


----------



## runnah

Gary A. said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.
> 
> The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.
> 
> Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> The clear majority of newspaper revenues come from advertising not sales. The sales revenues barely covered delivery costs. Sales was one of the methods to quantify circulation for advertising purposes.
> 
> This is a tough call ... I blame digital photography for lowering the standards of professional photography and maybe even photography in general.
> 
> Craigslist is the single torpedo which has cause the USS Los Angeles Times to take on serious water.
> 
> Prior to digital photography, in the genre of news/photojournalism, if you didn't have a darkroom or access to a darkroom, you didn't shoot news. There were very few darkrooms in the general population and most cameras were point & shoot. Back in the film only days an interchangeable lens camera was a unique luxury for the general population. Today, nearly every household in the first world has a digital camera (cell phone counts) and a access to a computer. Custom photography used to be reserved only for the pro and very serious amatuer, but now it is easily and cheaply available to nearly all.
> 
> By shear dilution, digital photography has affected the money making potential that was the darkroom.
Click to expand...



Rubbish. You forget that everyone had a film camera and everyone was taking terrible photos before digital cameras. If anything digital has allowed those with more talent than money to show off their skills.

As for the news and the pure documentation aspect of it things are much better. Before you were limited to seeing only what the editors allowed you to see. Now anyone with a camera phone who happens to be a near a newsworthy event can snap a photo and get it on Twitter and into the news.

Saying the standards of what makes a good photo have been lowered is silly. The amount of skill and creativity needed to take a good photo hasn't changed.


----------



## photoguy99

The ubiquity of digital cameras -- not even including phones -- is way way way beyond anything from the film days.

Sales of DSLRs peaked at something like 10x the record sales of SLRs.

Film cameras were common enough that in any group of middle class white people, there was usually _at least one person_ who had one. Digital cameras were common enough that _most people _in any group of middle class white people had one. Phones, of course, push that up to every member of every group in any first world nation and most second world nations.


----------



## runnah

photoguy99 said:


> The ubiquity of digital cameras -- not even including phones -- is way way way beyond anything from the film days.
> 
> Sales of DSLRs peaked at something like 10x the record sales of SLRs.
> 
> Film cameras were common enough that in any group of middle class white people, there was usually _at least one person_ who had one. Digital cameras were common enough that _most people _in any group of middle class white people had one. Phones, of course, push that up to every member of every group in any first world nation and most second world nations.



Did you factor in all sorts of film cameras or jus SLRs. Because everyone had some sort of film camera.


----------



## bribrius

runnah said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.
> 
> The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.
> 
> Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> The clear majority of newspaper revenues come from advertising not sales. The sales revenues barely covered delivery costs. Sales was one of the methods to quantify circulation for advertising purposes.
> 
> This is a tough call ... I blame digital photography for lowering the standards of professional photography and maybe even photography in general.
> 
> Craigslist is the single torpedo which has cause the USS Los Angeles Times to take on serious water.
> 
> Prior to digital photography, in the genre of news/photojournalism, if you didn't have a darkroom or access to a darkroom, you didn't shoot news. There were very few darkrooms in the general population and most cameras were point & shoot. Back in the film only days an interchangeable lens camera was a unique luxury for the general population. Today, nearly every household in the first world has a digital camera (cell phone counts) and a access to a computer. Custom photography used to be reserved only for the pro and very serious amatuer, but now it is easily and cheaply available to nearly all.
> 
> By shear dilution, digital photography has affected the money making potential that was the darkroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish. You forget that everyone had a film camera and everyone was taking terrible photos before digital cameras. If anything digital has allowed those with more talent than money to show off their skills.
> 
> As for the news and the pure documentation aspect of it things are much better. Before you were limited to seeing only what the editors allowed you to see. Now anyone with a camera phone who happens to be a near a newsworthy event can snap a photo and get it on Twitter and into the news.
> 
> Saying the standards of what makes a good photo have been lowered is silly. The amount of skill and creativity needed to take a good photo hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

you are making some good points here!


----------



## Gary A.

photoguy99 said:


> The ubiquity of digital cameras -- not even including phones -- is way way way beyond anything from the film days.
> 
> Sales of DSLRs peaked at something like 10x the record sales of SLRs.
> 
> Film cameras were common enough that in any group of middle class white people, there was usually _at least one person_ who had one. Digital cameras were common enough that _most people _in any group of middle class white people had one. Phones, of course, push that up to every member of every group in any first world nation and most second world nations.


Back in the '60's, in my neck of the works a 35mm, while not unusual, was not commonplace and was uncommon enough not to be a household item common to any group. In college (the '70's and 80's), in college taking photography was very common and I think the camera requirement and basic understanding of photography led to a upswing in 35mm, slr photography amongst the college educated with a trickle effect amongst non-college citizens.

I see a lot more digital cameras in the great outdoors than slr's during the film-only days. At youth sporting events today, two to three parents have dSLR's with longish lens per team. With my kids events in the '90's, I was unique in shooting youth sporting events with an ILC.


----------



## pixmedic

bribrius said:


> out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.



people said the same thing when roll film replaced wet plates.
when electronic metering came out.
when cartridge film came out.
when autowinders came out.
when autofocus came out.
The technology that "seemed" to make prior renditions obsolete did not start with digital photography, nor will it end with it. 

photography, like any other industry, is constantly changing.
the good photographers adapt, and the rest b!tch about the new innovations "killing" the industry.


----------



## imagemaker46

I grew up with cameras and was working the sidelines of professional football games starting in 1970, at that time there were possibly 6 photographers shooting a game.  In 1974 high school there were 3-4 people with film cameras.  While quite a few people did have some sort of film camera, they were not a household item, and the families I knew with cameras would have all the birthdays, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving pictures on the one roll in the camera.  It has changed with digital, and in the past 12 years it started.  Within the last 5 years the business started to go away, it became more difficult to keep good clients as some staff member owned a camera capable of producing an image they could use, it may not have been any good, but it was ok.  

This is where we are at today.  When I go to the same sidelines I started shooting on in 1970, there are now 20 photographers there, thing is there are still only 6 professionals shooting, the other 14 have no clients, are under equipped, and have no clue what they are doing. They managed to get passes through some bogus method(friend that works for the team usually) that will be tightened up next season.

The professionals are still working, but instead of sharing the loaf of bread that was there, we're all fighting over the crumbs now.  Every now and then you manage to grab a few slices and if you're lucky, you get to keep them.


----------



## fotomonkey

runnah said:


> Saying the standards of what makes a good photo have been lowered is silly. The amount of skill and creativity needed to take a good photo hasn't changed.


I don't know. I've certainly seen people's appreciation for questionable work. I don't think a lot of people care about quality.


----------



## dennybeall

It's not what makes a good photo that has changed, it's what people are willing to accept that has changed.
It actually could be that people have always been willing to accept less of a quality picture all along. We, as photographers just gave them more than they needed.


----------



## Gary A.

dennybeall said:


> It's not what makes a good photo that has changed, it's what people are willing to accept that has changed.
> It actually could be that people have always been willing to accept less of a quality picture all along. We, as photographers just gave them more than they needed.


I don't think the average viewer (people) have anything to do with it. I think economics of cheap/greed over quality/less profit combined with the elimination of the darkroom, speaks more to the present state of affairs than anything else.


----------



## runnah

I can't wait until my generation starts to wistfully look back upon the days of VHS and cassettes!


----------



## tirediron

bribrius said:


> out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.


This is exactly what the glass-plate set were yelling when George E. came along with that new-fangled roll-film stuff!


----------



## Derrel

I am amazed that not one person has mentioned specifically the hugely increased number of outlets that use photos. Back when imagemaker46 began shooting football, in this town there were TWO outlets for pro football images; then those two daily papers merged, and then there was ONE, single outlet that ran pro football pictures, the daily newspaper, The Oregonian, a paper that began in the 1850's.

Today, there are many,many web-based outlets. Images from a single game now can be used on literally HUNDREDS of web sites catering to sports photos and writing about events. I've read tons of talk about declining quality of images, but not much about how the huge increase in outlets means the photos of sports events are diluted in quality.

Interestingly, in last night's Oregon at Oregon State "Civil War" football game, the BEST shot so far of Oregon QB Marcus Mariota hurdling the OSU defender was shot by Brian Davies, of the Eugene-based paper, _The Register Guard_, perhaps the single best photojournalism newspaper left in the USA in terms of photographs driving the layouts, and photo quality and number. See the photo here,and _note where_ I am linking to this image!!!:   Mobile Uploads - University of Oregon Alumni Association | Facebook

Other sites have the same leap, but from different camera positions. The Oregonian's Bruce Ely, a good sports shooter, ran a complete motor-driven sequence of it on the Oregon Live web site this morning, but it's nowhere near as good.Marcus Mariota in the 2014 Civil War |                         OregonLive.com

Sports Illustrated ran with the SAME leap, but different timing, shot by another good shooter, Steve Dykes/Getty Images here: Oregon Ducks dominate in Civil War win over Oregon State Beavers - College Football - SI.com

There are plenty of blogs and news site that run stills today, which never existed even 15 years ago. EVERY single TV station in the USA now runs stills, and video; the blogs and the web sites of little, and gigantic corporate sites, now have the ability to upload 10,15,20 photos from news and sporting events, where in the past, they would run two, or three images tops, except on the very biggest stories of the year. Nowadays, the sheer number of published images is up one-hundred fold over what it used to be, back in the good ole days when a network of good ole boys were the only ones allowed to shoot sporting events.


----------



## dennybeall

Good point Derrel, there are more and more photos being used. Unfortunately a large number, if not the majority, of those photos are either free to the publisher or very cheap.
We have to be a strategist as well as a photographer these days just to get the photo without Susy or Phred jumping in the way waving their square foot of iPad in the air to take a photo.
Three photographers were up on a staircase taking photos and video of a large bird fishing in the surf yesterday and this lady just casually walks across the sand and almost up to the bird to take it's picture with her cellphone. Needless to say the bird took off and she just walked away.


----------



## imagemaker46

Quality for the most part in regards to everything being produced has changed.  The cheaper a product the more profit generated for the seller.  TV's that cost $10k a few years ago are selling for $500.00 or less, the quality may still be there but they don't last as long. Cheaper manufacturing practices are used, everything is imported from China, and the work is garbage. IKEA produces cheap products that fill a market but don't last.  Photographers have to charge less to get the work, but in the process, have to work much harder to generate the same kind of income.  It used to be shooting a quick job you could charge $300 for an hours work, now people are willing to do it for $50 just to get the work. Some people still appreciate the value of what they buy or who they hire, but these people are becoming more scarce.  Finding a really good client and being able to hold on to them for a few years is gold these days.


----------



## Derrel

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> It used to be shooting a quick job you could charge $300 for an hours work, now people are willing to do it for $50 just to get the work.



This is very,very true. I used to shoot small-product commercial photographs in the early 1990's using a 4x5 view camera and a couple of lenses, Polaroid back, and a professional studio lighting system that I had about seven years' worth of experience with. There were NO digital cameras then, and most scanners were $20,000+ machines owned only by service bureaus. Computers at that time, like our $4,000 Macintosh and our $2,000 texas Instruments laser printer, were barely able to open a .GIF file. It was the time of easy money in photography--you had to KNOW, as in KNOW, how to make photos, without screwing up. The fastest turn-around on slide film would be four hours, so...the business was entirely different in those days. Photography has transitioned from a specialist's field, to one in which hundreds of millions of people world-wide are at least passably proficient. The days of easy money are long gone. The easy money began going away as sooooooooooooon as flatbed scanners and personal computers gained the ability to actually "handle" color images.

Once pictures left the province of film, and proofs, and paper-based images and moved into digitally-stored and digitally transmitted and digitally-viewed images, photography as we knew it began to evolve, rapidly, into *digital imaging*. The entire older model, which had evolved over about 140 years of silver-based capture and mostly paper-based photographs, RAPIDLY morphed into an all-new business model for making, selling, viewing, and distributing pictures. The old, film-based, darkroom-based, print-based system collapsed very rapidly.

ALl the buggy-whip manufacturers, and saddle and tack makers lamenting the new-fangled horseless carriage with its rubber tires and infernal combustion engines and smelly gasoline instead of sweet hay and oats will not turn back the clock. I lost what would have been a great career out of it, right at this transitional period. A lucrative, easy business died, as NEW technology was invented, and mega-corporations sold the technology to millions of people eager to take over their own picture-making and picture-creating needs. So, of course, being a pro photographer isn't what it used to be.


----------



## imagemaker46

imagemaker46 said:


> I don't blame digital cameras for the demise in paying jobs, it certainly hasn't helped in some cases.  It's just a changing time in media.  I know people will always argue this, but I think the best days for being a pro photographer have passed.



I see there is a disagree without a reason.


----------



## The_Traveler

One can't just blame the company and put the onus on corporate greed.  Companies will buy the cheapest product that will do the job; it is irresponsible (in the eyes of the company or corporation) to pay more for unused quality. 
I am certain that there are terrific wines in the store, but I don't buy them because the lower cost wines are as good as I need and can appreciate.
My late company worked on used office furniture - because we never saw the client.
We bought low end PCs because we only did order fulfillment - but we spent relatively big $ on web servers, routers and connectivity because they were vital.
If you could show a newspaper that better photos bring a return on the investment, they'd buy.

Some parts of photography have been run over by the wheels of progress.
There is some satisfaction in understanding the reason for the certain parts of the business being in the dumper but that doesn't mean there is blame.

For an example of how smart people understood what was going on and the significance of the changes, look at B&H and Adorama.


----------



## runnah

I think another big issue is the whole term "pro". You have deluded fools that think "pro" means making money rather than the level of their work. So every chump with a DSLR that got Uncle Bob to give them $50 to take some photos of his used snowblower call themselves a pro. Same with the stay at home spouse that takes home $2k a year from photography but is only able to do it because they are supported by their other spouse.

To me the pro photographers who's work I saw in National Geographic, Time, Sports Mags, fashion etc... they were the real pro's.


----------



## The_Traveler

Actually it's Uncle Bob that is at the root of all this.
If we could get rid of him, we'd all be in clover.


----------



## imagemaker46

I've tried to help move out some of the photo-refuse, but like a bad rash they keep coming back. I'm afraid that Uncle Bobs of the world are here to stay.


----------



## bribrius

bribrius said:


> out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.


wow. five disagreements now. Looks like I struck a nerve. LMAO


----------



## chuasam

bribrius said:


> out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.


If you're talking about journalism and newspaper kind of photographer, I would say that Craig's List killed the Newspaper. Internet Blogs killed the magazines.


----------



## bribrius

chuasam said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about journalism and newspaper kind of photographer, I would say that Craig's List killed the Newspaper. Internet Blogs killed the magazines.
Click to expand...

naaaaa. I am pretty well decided that digital made photography a giant cliché.

Cliché - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A *cliché* or *cliche* (UK /ˈkliːʃeɪ/ or US /klɪˈʃeɪ/) is an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel


----------



## Ilovemycam

KmH said:


> Digital has fomented a golden age of photography.
> 
> There are more photos being made now than ever before, and with the Internet, sharing those photos is easier than ever.
> Digital photography has lowered the bar for what is generally and commercially considered a 'good' photograph.
> Photography users now hire people to comb the photo sharing web sites for the kind of images they want.
> They contact the amateur photographer about using the image knowing the amateur has no clue how much value their photograph has.
> 
> Some think the Internet is already starting to fade, with phone Apps taking over as the way to advertise.


 
Generic photos like the stuff you forum photogs do have nil value unless they are very, very special...like newsworthy. Or you have a client that will hire you for a project. There is no shortage of smoky water, burning steel wool and star trails. Sorry, but that is how it is.

Do we need any more flower pix??

Flickr: The FLOWERS Pool

1,228,875   photos just in this one pool. Tens of millions others out there.

Wall hangers are just a few bucks. $10 to $30 on eBay. You can get all the scenic pix you want for free nowadays. Just print them up for a buck or two on your inkjet.

Landscape - Wikimedia Commons

File:2011-08-02 15-07-48 Switzerland Diavolezza 11vl.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

File:Loch Torridon, Scotland.jpg - Wikimedia Commons


But...none of this matter to us. We keep pressing the button cause freezing time is in our blood.


----------



## chuasam

runnah said:


> I think another big issue is the whole term "pro". You have deluded fools that think "pro" means making money rather than the level of their work. So every chump with a DSLR that got Uncle Bob to give them $50 to take some photos of his used snowblower call themselves a pro. Same with the stay at home spouse that takes home $2k a year from photography but is only able to do it because they are supported by their other spouse.
> 
> To me the pro photographers who's work I saw in National Geographic, Time, Sports Mags, fashion etc... they were the real pro's.


to me, a pro photographer is one who makes more than half his/her income from Photography sources. There are TONS of professionals out there who don't sell their images to magazines and newspapers.


----------



## runnah

chuasam said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think another big issue is the whole term "pro". You have deluded fools that think "pro" means making money rather than the level of their work. So every chump with a DSLR that got Uncle Bob to give them $50 to take some photos of his used snowblower call themselves a pro. Same with the stay at home spouse that takes home $2k a year from photography but is only able to do it because they are supported by their other spouse.
> 
> To me the pro photographers who's work I saw in National Geographic, Time, Sports Mags, fashion etc... they were the real pro's.
> 
> 
> 
> to me, a pro photographer is one who makes more than half his/her income from Photography sources. There are TONS of professionals out there who don't sell their images to magazines and newspapers.
Click to expand...


Half? I'd say all or nothing.


----------



## dennybeall

Change is always an impact to those that are on the back side of the change. Cobblers are few and far between now as are blacksmiths and farriers and buggy whip makers. Photography has already changed at least twice in a very short time. Digital replacing film was a huge change but that didn't last but a short time as the cellphone and iPad cameras are pushing stand alone cameras out the door. People want the memories but are not as picky about the quality of the image.
Can the "JOB" of photographer be changed to remain a viable career? I don't think so. A new job must be formulated.
Perhaps "Event Documenter"? A person doing stills, videos and coordinating/collecting all the cellphone and iPad photos and presenting the package to the client as a multi-media movie on a tablet?????? Many of todays wedding photographers are doing something close to that now.


----------



## chuasam

runnah said:


> Half? I'd say all or nothing.


Let me teach you about the joys of multiple streams of income.
Why would you have photography be ALL your income? And not be considered a professional if you're also getting income from rental, investments, trust funds...that sort of thing.


----------



## Gary A.

To me "Pro" in terms of photography, relates to a degree of skill, experience and consistency. I often consider many photogs as pro because of the exceptional images they consistency capture. I try to overlook the accountant's term for professional and rate the photog's body of work.


----------



## photoguy99

Photography is perhaps unique in that people frequently define 'professional' as 'good at it'.


----------



## Ilovemycam

The_Traveler said:


> Actually it's Uncle Bob that is at the root of all this.
> If we could get rid of him, we'd all be in clover.


 
No you wouldn't. The cam companies could never stay in biz without em. Besides, your a Bob yourself. You going to give up the button?


----------



## Ilovemycam

bribrius said:


> out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.


 

Depends what you shoot. Digital opened up a lot of territory to me that would not have worked as well with film. On the other hand digital made it harder to do something with the pix cause of the overload of competition.


----------



## Ilovemycam

imagemaker46 said:


> I grew up with cameras and was working the sidelines of professional football games starting in 1970, at that time there were possibly 6 photographers shooting a game.  In 1974 high school there were 3-4 people with film cameras.  While quite a few people did have some sort of film camera, they were not a household item, and the families I knew with cameras would have all the birthdays, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving pictures on the one roll in the camera.  It has changed with digital, and in the past 12 years it started.  Within the last 5 years the business started to go away, it became more difficult to keep good clients as some staff member owned a camera capable of producing an image they could use, it may not have been any good, but it was ok.
> 
> This is where we are at today.  When I go to the same sidelines I started shooting on in 1970, there are now 20 photographers there, thing is there are still only 6 professionals shooting, the other 14 have no clients, are under equipped, and have no clue what they are doing. They managed to get passes through some bogus method(friend that works for the team usually) that will be tightened up next season.
> 
> The professionals are still working, but instead of sharing the loaf of bread that was there, we're all fighting over the crumbs now.  Every now and then you manage to grab a few slices and if you're lucky, you get to keep them.


 

Everyone wants to be a sexy photog pulling in the big bucks!


----------



## bribrius

our next step should be to see if we can take a photo, of someone taking a photo, of someone taking a photo.


Gary A. said:


> To me "Pro" in terms of photography, relates to a degree of skill, experience and consistency. I often consider many photogs as pro because of the exceptional images they consistency capture. I try to overlook the accountant's term for professional and rate the photog's body of work.


is overlooking this body of work ever questionable as you don't know how many shots they took to come out with those pics or how much processing was done? I mean if you shoot a hundred thousand pics you could be bound to come up with fifty decent ones just by chit accident.


----------



## chuasam

Gary A. said:


> To me "Pro" in terms of photography, relates to a degree of skill, experience and consistency. I often consider many photogs as pro because of the exceptional images they consistency capture. I try to overlook the accountant's term for professional and rate the photog's body of work.


Those poor sods you see working for LifeTouch and Artona (big chain studios) as well as Walmart and Sears photo studios are technically professionals though are they really good? Nah...just like saying working at McDonald's makes you a cook.

Why use the term "professional" and just refer to a photographer as good or rubbish.


----------



## chuasam

photoguy99 said:


> Photography is perhaps unique in that people frequently define 'professional' as 'good at it'.


Not  unique. The term also works with almost any given art form:
Professional Dancer
Professional Singer
Professional Cook
Professional Blogger

a lot of Professional Photographers are just really good at Business.


----------



## imagemaker46

I really suck at the business side of photography, always have.


----------



## pixmedic

imagemaker46 said:


> I really suck at the business side of photography, always have.



fortunate that you are damn good at the photography end then isn't it?


----------



## imagemaker46

pixmedic said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really suck at the business side of photography, always have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fortunate that you are damn good at the photography end then isn't it?
Click to expand...


Yep. I learned the business side from my Dad.  I passed these words on to my kids " When it comes to money, just do the opposite of me, and you'll be fine"  So far so good.


----------



## tirediron

imagemaker46 said:


> I really suck at the business side of photography, always have.


Moi aussi.


----------



## Gary A.

chuasam said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me "Pro" in terms of photography, relates to a degree of skill, experience and consistency. I often consider many photogs as pro because of the exceptional images they consistency capture. I try to overlook the accountant's term for professional and rate the photog's body of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Those poor sods you see working for LifeTouch and Artona (big chain studios) as well as Walmart and Sears photo studios are technically professionals though are they really good? Nah...just like saying working at McDonald's makes you a cook.
> 
> Why use the term "professional" and just refer to a photographer as good or rubbish.
Click to expand...

When I grew up in the film-only days, 'Pro" actually meant something when attached to photographer. When I was shooting news, we were all pros ... we'd call the exceptional news photogs "shooters". As in ... " Hey, isn't that Burrows. Man, he's a real shooter."


----------



## Gary A.

imagemaker46 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really suck at the business side of photography, always have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fortunate that you are damn good at the photography end then isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I learned the business side from my Dad.  I passed these words on to my kids " When it comes to money, just do the opposite of me, and you'll be fine"  So far so good.
Click to expand...

I did freelancing to get me through school ... way too much work.


----------



## photoguy99

I have not seen those uses. I am a superb cook, but nobody calls me professional.

I have known some excellent dancers and singers and never heard them called professional. Perhaps this is a common usage elsewhere? The UK or similar?


----------



## Microbois

Wow, just read through this discussion. Let me add my grain of salt...

I used to be a photographer for 3 different local newspapers in the early nineties. Back then, I was printing my own photos in my personal darkroom at home. Obviously, the ability to provide 5x7 B&W prints to the newspapers in a few hours was almost their condition #1 to be hired. Also, being local newspapers, most of the assignments were not suitable to push on your creativity button too much. It was all the typical local social stuff, like the mayor cutting ribbons, boring press conferences announcing they would change garbage day, etc. From this respect, digital photography has changed a lot of things because now, any journalist with a basic photo course can make very decent pictures with a small P&S camera during such events. I can't really blame newspapers to try to save the salary of the photographer sitting with a journalist at a 1hr press conference. Of course, having a pro photographer with too much time on his hands during a boring press conference can potentially turn up better pictures of 3 persons sitting behind a table than a journalist too busy taking notes, but seriously, nobody cares for such pictures.

This is why many photographers lost their jobs in recent years. The newspaper I work for now as a columnist in the weekend edition, used to have 15 full-time photographers, and they had about 6 part-time photographers. To make the story short, they eventually fired them all, and kept only one full-time photographer for the hard stuff (sports games, night life, food, shows, macro work, criminal stuff, etc).

So, the truth is; yes, digital photography made it so much easier for beginners to come up with a decent picture quick. No more darkroom chemistry, instant feedback to see if the picture is good or not, and for the most clueless ones, even automatic programs helping getting a good shot. It's never been easier to make good pictures than today, and fortunately for us, there are so many people buying cameras, that it has never been more affordable than now.

In fact, I see photographers like cobblers today. They were everywhere back in the days we used to buy quality shoes/boots and kept them for several years. Now, who brings old shoes to the cobbler to get them repaired? We just throw them away and buy news ones. Do cobblers have disappeared? Nope, but the remaining few are just dealing with the tough work no one else can do, and they are underpaid. Sounds familiar? As it was mentioned by others, the number of pictures available now, and their low cost, just doesn't make sense anymore today to hire a photographer to get similar shots for couple hundreds of dollars. Sorry, I've earned money with photography myself, and there's no way I could convince myself that a customer needs me to shoot his boring press conference. But, for the tough stuff, where creativity or the technical complexity of the shot is far beyond the knowledge of the weekend photographer, sure, I'm your man...

Unfortunately, some clients can't always see the difference between the work of a professional, and a weekend photographer, so they will strike for the cheaper of the two. That being said, some hobbyists are capable of excellent work that can be published, so on that end, we just can't dismiss them all based on the fact that they are not pros.


----------



## Microbois

Just to add a little bit to this discussion, what happened to photographers in recent years also happened in many other fields... I see tons of parallels with photography, let's see...

I have a friend who's a musician and he made a new album recently. He recorded it, mixed it, mastered it, and produced it himself. He used all the same software the music industry is using, and he learned the whole thing by himself. In his case, it was either he does all by himself, or there's no album at all. While I'm no expert in music, to my ears, the sound quality is totally at par with what is sold today from the big bands in music stores. Maybe an audio engineer would pick on little things, but let's say my friend is probably at 95% of what a professional studio would have produced.

I'm a columnist for a major newspaper, and also a magazine writer, and the same problem has been happening in this field as well. In the past, those positions where held by "professional" journalists who had an interest in a specific field. They were writing articles or columns on top of their day job as a journalist. Of course, they were paid the same salary, which turned out to be very expensive in the end. Then, came the popularity of bloggers, and self proclaimed experts, so those magazines and newspapers opened up their pages to those "non professional" writers. They could pay them much less since they were not officially employed by the media, and quite frankly, would welcome the notoriety of being published by a serious media. In the vast majority of cases though, those "non-professional" experts happened to know a lot more on their subject than journalists with a hobby. They were not the best writers though, but their articles could be reviewed and corrected by internal staff, then published. In the end, you got a much better article written by a passionate individual in the know, and costing much less. If you're the boss, what would you do?

I have a friend who owes an helicopter. He used to have a TV show where he would present some interesting regions from above. Well... His net cost to keep his 350K$ helicopter in the air for say half a day, is about the same as buying a high-end drone with 4K recording capabilities. When you consider that you can hire any 15 years old kid who got a drone for Christmas, pay him 100$ a day, and get all the aerial footage you want... Of course, my pilot friend is no longer producing his TV show...

Being a book writer is also a huge challenge today. Very few succeed, and you have to be very persistant if you want to be published, especially if it's your first book. Or, you can publish yourself if no one wants your book.

What about cinema and movies? Almost the same... Remember the Blair Witch Project movie? While only the big studios can afford to produce movies like Star Wars, The Lord of the RIng and the Hobbit Trilogy, you do have individual filmmakers that are producing interesting movies with very little means. Remember Fede Alvarez with his short "Ataque de Panico!"? I would not want those guys to be weeded out of the movie landscape. I spend a lot of hours watching videos on Vimeo, and I'm always pleasantly surprised to see that there is so much talent out there.

As you can see, this is an entirely new world of opportunities. The more pessimistic of us may see it as the good old days are gone because the content we get to see today is no longer controlled and filtered by big corporations and medias providing excellent working conditions. Of course, if you were a highly paid worker in these corporations, and happened to take it easy in the years before you got fired, you're probably not in the right mind set to appreciate what is done today by people with a fraction of the means you use to have. Well folks, party's over...

The optimistic people though are truly excited by today's technology. If you are passionate and talented, and you know what you are doing, well, there will be no freakin corporate idiot who will tell you that your ideas suck and refuse to produce your work. You can get it done yourself, and have the freedom of proving them all wrong. Let the public be the judge... This is exactly what is getting me going nowadays. We will see talented people emerging from nowhere because they can do it, not because someone in a big corporation decided for myself that they were worth seeing...

Of course, a lot of "pros" are in for a very rough ride nowadays, as it's getting real hard to distinguish yourself from the crowd, but it happened in the past... I beleive though that we need to focus our attention couple years ahead, and see where our industry is going if we still want to make money out of photography in the future.


----------



## Hermes1

imagemaker46 said:


> The experienced and skilled sports photographers are still turning out the same high end images they have always put out.  What has changed is that because there are a lot more photographers that have access to better gear the number of sports images has increased, in the majority of cases, they are considered acceptable.  The local Jr hockey team here has two team photographers, they are both using similar gear to me, they charge $50 per game, only one gets the $50, if they both show up they split it.  The images they produce are acceptable, some are pretty good, but they are laced with technical flaws, a little soft, poor crops, colours are off, crooked ice, I could go on.  I went out and shot a game they were at, my images were far better.  I sent a few to the team, and they wanted to use mine over the team photographers, I said no.  If they want to consider using me next season I offered a proposal, and it was turned down, with the reason, we're happy with what we get already and it wouldn't be worth your while.  I had not even discussed money, or what else I could offer them but better images.  The fact that they were happy with "acceptable" images was all that mattered.
> 
> So to answer your question, it has become easier to produce acceptable images, only because people have lowered their own standards as to what is acceptable.   Some of what I see online is garbage, even by "acceptable" standards, but they are still being used.  It's not always about the money, but that is a factor these days.



Exactly right.  "Good enough" and saving $$ is the name of the game these day's.


----------



## IronMaskDuval

Professional photography has changed because it has become easier for someone to learn the trade. In the business world, it's not about getting the photo with the best technical qualities, it's about getting the photo that works and at the right price. What I see from successful creatives is that they lose their pride and are only concerned about producing a useable product. The ones who are not successful, spend their time concerned about technical qualities and creativity. That's just not how things work in the business world.


----------

