olddog Loc: louisville ky

Hello, this is olddog with a question about becoming a professional between now and say fifty years ago. My neighbor and I had this discussion last week. I say it was easier to get a job back then because you had to know the mechanics of the camera and the darkroom and not as many people had that skill. Now days, with digital cameras and some computer knowhow, a person can just click away and get involved in the job market. My neighbor says that just because a person has a camera doesn't mean they can use it at a high skill level. I know she is right about that but I think more people would be after these jobs today. I was hired by a postcard company in Wisconsin in 1962 to work the resort area shooting scenery and advertising photos. I used a 5x7 view camera for b&w and a 4x5 reducer back for color. I scanned a postcard I shot in the early 1960s. It sold a lot of copies. Hope you like it. I still think a young person starting out today, would have more competition in a tough job market. Thoughts on this anyone?

tk Loc: Iowa

Nice shot. And you are both right. You neighbor is absolutely right. Just because you have a camera and some skill does NOT make you a professional. And you are right because that is what people think and what they do.

Creates problems for professionals and people. People don't pay attention to who they are hiring, just looking at the cost and they get what they pay for. Soon the town is overrun with wannabe's and everyone is trying to share the pot and it isn't there. Most of the wannabe's don't know how to run a business and fail. The real professionals struggle because of the other small timers.

gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

The beauty of capitalism is that everything will be sorted out by supply and demand. Those who misrepresent themselves will soon be identified, as will those who are able to deliver the things they promised.

If there are not enough professionals to fill the needs of the consumer, or if the price is so high that the consumer will accept a lesser product for a lesser fee, then the system still works.

Those who want quality and can afford quality will choose a professional who can deliver the goods. I don't think that will ever change (Unless the goverment steps in and regulates the business. If that happens, it will have nothing to do with the skills of the photographer and everything to do with garnering votes in the next election. :>)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Can you imagine dozens of people carrying 5X7 view cameras around with them today? Getting a technically good image today is easier than it was 50 years ago, so more people think they can become professionals.

I wonder when it would be more difficults to open a photo business, then or now. Digital vs film, darkroom vs computer. Tough call. Of course, technically, it would be impossible to open a photo business today in 1962, so it's a moot point. :D

Rathyatra Loc: Southport, United Kingdom

If only Capitalism worked in practice as it is described in theory.

The perfect market does not exist in reality only in imagination.

You are right in that people, who can afford it, will pay for quality but folks are always looking for a bargain and standards are lowered as a result.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I did a career as a professional television news / sports photographer. Stills were a hobby then and a semi-profession now.

You're correct there is more competition out there for the available jobs but I have to agree just because someone owns a digital camera doesn't make that person a photographer that anyone would want to hire.

As a Chief Photographer at my last commercial news station, I hired for skill not education - strictly skill at shooting. The angles, the exposure, the ability to catch that shot that no other station did, all kinds of things.

News, sports and other professional outlets for photography are looking for all those same things today and even more. They're also demanding longer working hours and more production. The editors, be they for stills or video are looking for more acceptable material from which they can choose what will be published.

All of that shot with the skill atributed to a "pro".

Regardless of film or digital photo basics are the same.
Regardless of film or digital those hiring photographers are all looking for that skill - that, in my opinion, won't change.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Look closely on Google at what photography employers are willing to pay today. I see ads all the time for "take 50 shots of this whatever for $50 to $75 then resize them all in bulk and upload them via Internet to us." Time involved is absurd and the pay is about $1 to $1.25 per shot. Some will pay $15 to $20 to drive to a location within 25 miles of your home, take two to six shots, and upload them to the company. Take gas and time consumption out of that and there's not much left.

Everybody wants to pay "by the shot" and pay practically nothing. Yes, there are high paying careers out there if you go to a major art institute and spend $40,000 on tuition to learn everything the right way but the bottom of the photography market fell out long ago just like every other artistic endeavor like music.

I got married the first time in 1973. We paid a photographer $150 for a day of shooting and a memory book of (50) 5X7 shots and one 8X10 for the wall. He composed as he shot, didn't crop anything, and had prints done or did them himself. That's about $3 per shot gross profit per shot before expenses. Maybe his net profit was $2 per shot, $100 for the event. Back then, in the day of making $500 a month for a blue collar job, that was decent money for one day but I'm sure most of his jobs were better paying than ours because we were on a very tight budget.

Today, almost 40 years later, a bride expects 1800 to 2000 shots to be taken, to get a book of 300 or more prints, to get a CD or DVD of all 1800 to 2000 shots, and the photographer and/or an assistant is/are supposed to spend a couple days quickly post-editing all shots that are delivered. Going rate around my area is $1500 to $2500 for that amount of effort. So we're now talking about $1 per shot taken minus all expenses, minus an assistant, and including a day of shooting and probably two days of editing. The dollar to hour ratio for this professional who may be well trained and seasoned is severely compromised and the income per shot is 1/3 as much as it used to be - despite expensive digital cameras and computer knowledge.

After all expenses, this photographer may be clearing $750 for THREE days of effort. The cost of living has gone up 10X since 1973. He should be clearing 10X as much in one work day as the photographer who shot my 1973 wedding in one work day (but he's not) - AND it also takes him 3X as long to make that amount.

As you should be able to calculate, the era of full-time professional photographers making a living from still photography alone is waning so it's not something most people should consider these days.

I have a friend who was a very well-known professional here in Florida for 15 years doing weddings, family portraiture, business photography, etc. About 5 years ago, wedding consumers wanting to use him because of his reputation and word-of-mouth advertising from prior clients also started wanting to find less expensive alternatives that he might offer. He had to create lesser packages for less money down to his bare bones of profitability and survival but that still wasn't enough. He lost so much business over the last five years that he's moving his studio out of a shopping center location into his 3-car garage, has had to move into videography for bands, conventions, and business advertisements, plays in bands on off-nights of the week and Sunday, and has set up three DJ systems with two guys working for him and he runs one himself on weekends where there are no weddings to do.

The public attitude has clearly become 1) mass quantity of any quality for the amount they're forced to pay, 2) pay the least possible and sacrifice top quality if necessary, 3) hope that Uncle Jack, Brother Jimmy, neighbor Quagmire, and Aunt Martha with their Kodak bridge cameras or P&Ss can get enough reasonable shots to avoid paying a photographer at all.

Unless you've got a niche market of something much narrower than weddings - or portraits that K-Mart or WalMart will do for $9.95 - that you can fill with little or no competition, I don't believe pursuing a profession of full-time photography is very feasible anymore for those not living somewhere like NYC or LA. Exceptions being something you are trained to do like medical photography for doctors/hospitals, forensic photography, or other narrow specialty.

Doug B Loc: Edmonton Alberta

The pot gets smaller all the time with Iphones and everyone with an instant camera. While we wring our hands over what we consider the perfect photo, most people will pick a photo that we think is terrible and think it is wonderful as experienced by many wedding photographers. My favorite saying is if you really want to make money from photography now, sell your camera:-)

lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

HI guys. I had thoughts of making money from my pics after I got my canon 4 years ago. I now have that well and truly kicked out of me. Not because I'm a bad photographer or lack computer skills, but because every tom dick and harrietta has a camera that "can" take good pics even if they are bad at it. There are only so many magazines etc and so many many people with cameras!!!

crazy ducks and a swamp hen

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

If you think of yourself as an artist and you can operate your equipment confidently, consider yourself pro level.

jazzplayer

Note that the word "professional" is merely an indicator as to whether one gets money for their work, which no longer has much of a correlation with a photogs actual skill or ability.

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

I have to agree about the specialty photography. I have been asked by some of the firefighters in my area if I do weddings and I have turned all of them down as I don't and don't want to get into weddings due to an over saturation of wedding photographers in my area. I refer them all to some of the photographers that I know who do it but they keep insisting that I get into it. I'll stick with what I do for photos right now until I can afford to expand and have more experience.

Appletonwest Loc: Wisconsin

Spent many a weekend at this place -- could get 10 beers for a buck and listen to some decent bands --- Waupaca was a fun place.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

"Professional Grade" and "Professional" are two different things. When they come together, strangely most photographers become "artists" - and that is a good thing.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Excellent answer. We should keep this as a future reference because the question will come up again.