An example: Why it can be hard to make a living as a pro

<p>I had my truck serviced at the Dodge dealership today, and on the service counter was a 5x7 photograph of a young boy with a basketball. I was struck by the creative positioning of the boy, and I thought from the background fabric that it must have been a serious portrait taken by a professional. I asked the service manager, a young man in his late 20s or early 30s, if it was his son, and he said it was. When I asked where he had the photo taken, he replied that he had taken it. With his <strong>cell phone</strong>, no less. When a rank amateur, someone who doesn't consider himself to be a photographer (yes, I asked) in any sense of the word, can get such a great photo with a very small camera that is an accessory to a cell phone, I can better understand why so many professional photographers are finding these to be tough economic times. No question here; just an observation.</p>

<p>Cell phones do make photography ubiquitous, despite the catch phrase, "If it has a ring-tone, it's not a camera." But, I recall 20+ years ago having to compete with part-timers who'd bought expensive cameras, printed business cards, and relied on people who cannot distinguish quality from price. IMO it's up to those of us dedicated to image quality, not luck, to educate our customers.</p>

<p>I got my wood floors refinished when I moved into our house. I got five estimates. Four were very close and one was a lot less. I called one of the close guys who'd impressed me and who I really wanted to use and asked about the disparity. I got a real education on dilution and application techniques which made me realize the inexpensive quote was not merely inexpensive, it was cheap.</p>

<p>When my brother got married he passed on my recommendation for a photog and got what he paid for and has apologized for doubting my advice 1,000 times. I'd find gloating easier if the bride-n-groom shot over the living room fireplace wasn't so disappointing.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>Plenty of non-professional photographers can take great portraits, and I have seen spectacular portrait work by non-professionals. What makes the professional different is the ability to produce on command and to meet customer requirements. </p>

<p>I have been a ASE certified car mechanic back in the 90's and the same goes on in that business, as in other business as well. People can and will pay a technician or shop good money to fix their car.</p>

<p>Plenty of people buy, or rent, their tools and buy parts and fix their own car. Plenty of them going out on the street and fix other cars for a lower price then the profesional mechanics.</p>

<p>With the same quality results, and sometimes with disaster.</p>

<p>In every field/craft there is something like this going on, but... yes... it's tougher to convince the clients why to choose profesional photographers, especialy in a low income area where I live. Walmart rules most of the time.</p>

<p>My 2 cents.</p>

<p>Technology makes everyone with a phone into a photographer of sorts, but there were always people who could take great shots with their Brownie, or whatever. There were even a few natural 'sketchers' before there were cameras.</p>

<p>The comments above are completely apposite.</p>

<p>There have been amateur photographers with compact cameras for many decades now. Its nothing new.</p>

<p>If what people use to represent themselves on Facebook counts, the phone camera shots like much amateur stuff is still blah and junk. So, it only means I have yet to see a trend in competition that would put a professional out of business via the access to consumer cameras and pseudo cameras. Competition is more cut throat on price, that appears obvious from some of the threads I see lately here in PN. That trend is apparently growing,</p>

<p>I am an amateur photographer / hobbyist. I think some of the photographs I have taken in the past... I think... would be up to par with some of the "professional" photographers I have seen.</p>

<p>However, there's one big difference between myself and a professional photographer. I don't do it for a living, and I have a lot of respect for the people that do. The only people that I offer to take portraits of are people that I know would not and can not afford a professional, I enjoy the experience and they get some decent photographs out of it.</p>

<p>One picture in one of the thousands of truck stations in the world is hardly significant, but the tendency is probably there. More and more people get access to better and better cameras, and taking more and more pictures, more and more people are bound to occasionally succeed and (more importantly) be able to identify a good picture.<br>

Nevertheless, there should always be a market for the skilled photographer, who is able to take non-trivial pictures.<br>

If I go somewhere with a friend who is a P- or Auto-shooter, s/he is likely to succeed with more standard shots than me, as I am fiddling with manual or aperture modes on my camera. However, when it comes to shots in particular situations, light conditions and shots where a precise depth of field is needed, I am more likely to make it work.<br>

Likewise, a professional photographer who fully masters artificial lights, off-camera flashes, iTTL and so on, is bound to create some excellent photos, that I, poor amateur, have no hope of ever achieving.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What makes the professional different is the ability to produce on command and to meet customer requirements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if only that was true Jeff. While that may be true of most I have encountered enough professionals (as in asking money for what they do) and seen their work who suck at it. A good pro knows what to take on and what not. Perhaps that's the most important distinction?</p>

<p>Most all photos are shot; and lawns cut by amateurs; ie you are not being paid.</p>

<p>A pro has an actual living client to please.</p>

<p>An amateur has no client; thus they can cherry pick their best of the best images; upload them to photo.net and seek approval; ie a report card by other amateurs.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /> A pro lives in a <strong>NON BEST CASE WORLD</strong>; their client will tell you your images are crap; and they want the image shot a certain way; or you will not be paid. They have deadlines too.</p>

<p>This is totally confusing to an amateur; who lives in a sheltered bubble; there is no irrational human to please. An amateur is not "closing the loop" around a paying clients needs; which can change; be obtuse; be fickle; be difficult. An amateur has this fantasy world where most want to be discovered; be paid millions by National Geographic to shoot images; there is no deadline; no hard-nosed editor; and one will get gobs of great reviews and praise.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /> Thus will all my tangling with Jeff; I have to back up that his short statement fits the bill real well:</p>

<p><strong>"What makes the professional different is the ability to produce on command and to meet customer requirements."</strong></p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /> This means that a wedding photographer has to deal with a bossy MOB and B&G; and the B&G weight in at 1/3 ton as a pair shaped couple and want to look slimmer. One of your cameras breaks down; a flash dies; you get a flat tire on the way to the church; the clergy wants no images; and you still deliver decent images. Being a pro really is about delivering what a client wants; the actual person paying you for the task.</p>

<p>The same goes for lawn care; except if you trim the client's roses too much; they will grow back. In a wedding; if you fail to deliver; you get earmarked by all the brides friends as an amateur; one who was not a professional; ie one who cannot deliver a product. A pro has to too temper a client's demands; ie know what can and cannot be done; ie not tell them you have a 1.000 batting average; ie know ones limits.<br /> <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Look at Baseball; a good pro hitter does not have to hit grand slams; or hit it out of the ballpark. Just because an amateur can hit the ball out of Yankee stadium once in a decade does not mean he can be a good pro hitter; his batting average in the majors might be 0.050; thus a dud.</p>

<p>Thus the "quality" of the work of a pro versus an amateur is not the direct measure.<br /> ie one can say the amateur's work is "pro quality" because it is excellent; it just does not mean that the amateur can leave the bubble and venture with dealing with an actual client and a deadline</p>

<p>An amateur can cherry pick his work; and display images that are equal or better than pros.<br /> It really has nothing to do with technology or equipment; it is about pleasing a paying client,<br /> <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>A pro does not have the luxury of best casing things; an editor might want a pro photographer to shoot some images for tommorows newspaper; the event is horrible; its raining; ones equipment has some failures; folks do not show up that the editor demands to be in the images. Delivering is more like calling a pro guy to clog a sewer line at 10pm; it can be a nasty job; not so fun and things can be messy.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /> ****Ask yourself why are there not so many amateur plumbers "hoping to be discovered"?</p>

<p>Ie chaps waiting to be paid for only the cleanest; best; glamour plumbing jobs? ie ones with no poop?</p>

<p>The most glaring difference that impacts proffessional photographers nowadays regarding the sometimes, disloyal competition from amateurs is a very important one....The fact that 10-15 ( maybe earlier than that) years ago someone with a camera and equipment not necesarily of pro caliber could turn up reasonably decent photographs that could be used or maybe published. HOWEVER, that person had to have a small ammount of photo knowledge, sensitivity, technique and so on. At present times all you need is a cheap camera or a cell phone and you get legible images no matter how photographically illiterate you might be. I am not knocking the fact that amateur photographers regardless of equipment have allways been raising the bar for pros over the years by doing wonderfull work. But when magazines and all kind of bussinesses that used to rely on work by pro photographers have begun to settle for much lesser quality photos because it's cheaper to buy from someone who merely got a couple of pictures right and is eager to have them published or whatever,or they have lost thier sense of what is, or should be their minimum standard of quality, that is when pro photographers now have a lot to be concerned about. </p>

boris d s, what is "disloyal competition"? And why would you attach "vdr.tif" in this thread?

<blockquote>

<p>disloyal competition from amateurs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Disloyal"? Did they take an oath? Amateurs don't owe anything to professionals. In a changing world, you can either change to meet the challenges or complain about someone else.</p>

<p>Although I understand Jeff's point, I also understand Ton's. Only yesterday I was strolling down the Yorktown beach and encountered for the n-th time a professional photographer doing golden hour portraiture there. For her, the golden hour occurs well after the sun has set, when the light is getting much too dim. The first time I had noticed this photographer, she was standing atop a ladder, very importantly peering through a camera mounted atop a very tall tripod. Her assistant was standing close at hand, looking very bored. The camera was pointed down towards two very miserable looking children huddled, arm-in-arm, on a very cold granite block. They were all waiting (I suppose for the light to get even dimmer). The little girl was tired and let her knees come apart slightly. The photographer scolded her, "Young ladies sit with their LEGS TOGETHER!" The little girl corrected her pose, and they continued to wait for the "perfect" light -- for about a half hour. Wow! I bet THAT was a great portrait!</p>

<p>Then yesterday she and her assistant were photographing newlyweds on the beach. She had them huddled on a granite rock, shooting them apparently at a wide angle, looking down upon them well past the real golden hour. "Hmmmm," I thought, "same idiot photographer." I walked on, and when I came back, both she and her assistant were snapping away at the couple with two cameras. Both of them had the same perspective, the same cameras, and the same flashes, so the photos were probably quite redundant. Both had OmniBounces on them, which is sort of funny, because there was nothing anywhere to bounce (therefore soften) the light. So did they really know how the things are used? The sunset was one of those complete fizzle jobs -- nothing at all interesting about it, and yet it was being featured prominently in the photo.</p>

<p>And then there's another local professional with a really fancy studio, who seems to get a reasonable share of work. He is very much in love with himself and likes to have his clients stand on a bench in front of the studio's brick wall, while he shoots them from below. I guess it's all about the light, but he doesn't get good light, IMO, even with a lot of very expensive equipment.</p>

<p>That's professional photography -- or at least one version of it. That version of professional photography seeks to use impressive and conspicuously high end gear to photograph people in weird ways that would not occur to the average sane person. The crowning touch is usually a B&W conversion, which makes the photograph "art."</p>

<p>And then there are some amateurs I know who, if asked, could do a pretty respectable job photographing any random person/thing/setting they might be asked to shoot. They just do it for fun and don't earn a living at it.</p>

<p>So to me, the word "professional" only means "for hire." It's usually not any indication of the quality of the work product, even though it can be pitched as such.</p>

<p>This happens everywhere when the technology becomes affordable to the masses. So many are so willing to give it away. Theft is rampant even by the biggest corporations.</p>

<p>A graphic designer client of mine, that has become a good friend now, says to me the other day in his office "Come here, look at this fire fox plugin" and he shows me this extension that is just a search tool for Flickr. It goes out and only retrieves photos that anyone can use legally and without permission. He types in cat, dog, girl + computer etc and instantly this engine shows him tons of photos on flickr that he can use while making websites and brochures and logos for his clients. "I don't need to hire a photographer or buy stock ever again. Look at this health and wellness website i just built with free images..." And there is was great yoga photos. Another nail.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What makes the professional different is the ability to produce on command and to meet customer requirements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wish it was as simple as that. Every customer is different so there is no standard "customer". There's no requirements for a professional photographer.</p>

<p>15 years ago I needed a min of $10K in medium format Hassie gear and know how to wet print colour and b&w to separate myself from the small format snap shooters. Today, it's only a matter of a D90, $300 for LR, a blog and business card.<br>

This happens everywhere when the technology becomes affordable to the masses. Mobby's first release was done on a laptop in Central Park. There's a whole string of skilled technicians and engineers with expensive gear that was bypassed.</p>

 

<p>actually Sarah I do think Jeff makes the same distinction but the way he put it I simply couldn't resist. I've got some really good pro's close by some of which are good friends. People who know their job and who understand what professional implies beyond getting paid for it.<br>

I'm a non-pro. Given some exceptions I don't take on paid assignments. I have that luxury because I've got a job that I love doing and for which I'm fairly well paid. Going pro here would mean a constant financial struggle.<br>

But I've done more than one re-shoot for people who had contracted a "pro" to do a job for them and did it poorly. It happens to all of us I guess. I screwed up a job once as well but some people just aren't up to it at all but still have the audacity to charge money for something that they are ill-equipped to do. Sure, a smart client checks beforehand but the cliche that you get what you pay for, as some always put it, is a frightfull generalisation. The simple truth is if you don't know what you're doing than don't do it in the first place.<br>

Your examples are all too familiar.</p>

<p>One could go back to when roll film came out and hear the wet glass plate guys whining; due to the new easier technology; Affordable to the masses.<br>

<br /> I have heard this whine for many many decades; thus it is nothing new. Folks bitched about newcomers and lower prices in the 1960's; ie cried a river of tears. ie the same old tied story</p>

<p>RE :"The simple truth is if you don't know what you're doing than don't do it in the first place."</p>

<p>Go read the wedding forums for a while; there are many threads where folks are shooting their first wedding; having never shot one before; or even as an assistant. They got asked because the MOB or B&G saw some of their good images. It is like a once a week new thread</p>

<p>Both pro plumbers and pro photographers can screw up too; but they have a business reputation to protect</p>

<p>Re "I have that luxury because I've got a job that I love doing and for which I'm fairly well paid. Going pro here would mean a constant financial struggle."</p>

<p>The above is quite common.</p>

<p>If one is fully a pro to stay a float one has to charge a lot more; there is real life overhead; taxes; business licenses;a whole gamut of stuff happens. It is not longer pure fun; you have to please a real live human</p>

I am not a pro. I, however, was the sole proprieter of my own photo business for about seven years before I got old and tired and cashed out the business. I don't know if I ever met the definition of pro although I made money. What I learned was that in order to meet the competition I had to really know how to do weddings under many varying conditions. That meant that I had to know how to use my flash equipment, how to do competitive portraits, how to quickly process or get my stuff processed, how to print in my dark room, both color and black and white, how to work my studio lights and move them to location and how to properly expose pictures in all sorts of weird light, etc. etc. I had to deliver and photograph according to customer expectations not necessarily to my own taste. More importantly I was successful at marketing my product. That takes time and a lot of work. When I stopped I was getting most of my business from word or mouth because people liked my attitude while working(very important) and accepted and paid for my work. I set up my accounts so that I knew what was producing income and so I could price properly. I knew my competitions weaknesses. One I really exploited was producing proofs to the customers within a week while my competition was delivering in months. I think that if I were ever to become a true professional I would have to do all of the above and more. I took a stab at it. The reason I cashed out was that it was damned hard work and I was getting old and it was at least my third or fourth career. Being a professional, in my humble opinion, is a lot more than taking pictures. Lot's of people can take nice pictures even with cell phones. Not so many can sell them. I think one has to be versed in all aspects of photography (no copping out by only doing natural light and not learning to use flash); one has to be personable enough so the customers can relate, know how to conduct a business and has time to market one's services. So, as Jeff will tell you, it is not doing what you want to do but repsonding to the needs of others and going out to find those others so you can serve them and hopefully make some money. It ain't all art IMHO.

Remember too, that everything a professional has to produce today, like 700 photos in a wedding, has to meet an acceptable professional standard. That is not for someone to judge but to produce vital referral business. I sweated over everything I delivered to the paper I worked for, my wedding customers, the businesses I did PR for, and I guarantee you no one ever saw my bad work. That meant that I not only had deliver a professional looking product but it had to be delivered in sufficient quantity to satisfy the needs of the custromer. It staggers meet that people are looking for wedding quantitites over a thousand these days. Nadine I think business is much harder these days than a few years ago when I was doing it. Lightroom, I think is a life saver.

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation">Disintermediation</a> of the professional is a problem any time that the work of a job is something that people also do for fun (or, at least, the situation can be perceived that way).</p>

<p>This is a huge problem in all sorts of fields, from graphic design and fine art to building custom computers, writing novels, and testing snowboards. But you sure don't see it much in accounting, industrial engineering, or heart surgery. Why? Because very few people want to do those things in their spare time, and because those industries raise <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry">barriers to entry</a> in the form of minimum education levels, professional certifications, and trade groups/unions. </p>

<p>Sadly, not all industries lend themselves to such protectionism. <em> </em>Few people are willing to hire an unlicensed electrician, but plenty will hire an unlicensed photographer - because there usually is no license to speak of, and the threat of bad photos weighs less heavily on the mind than the threat of your house burning down (or being audited by the IRS, in the case of an unlicensed accountant etc.)</p>

<p>I guess that's just the economics of the industry. Which is one of the reasons why I work in one of those 'boring' industries and just shoot photos in my spare time.</p>

<p>The ubiquity of digital photography may also lower the standards and expectations of people who use photographs. Sure, paying a professional might get better images. But Uncle Jehosephat's digicam is good enough, especially if you don't know any better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A good pro knows what to take on and what not. Perhaps that's the most important distinction?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is that "good" doesn't really matter here. It is always a factor, whether hiring a plumber or a photographer. It's about what the expectation is, and one has to assume that most professionals should be "good" enough to be better than the average person who is not a professional.<br>

<br />However, I have seen plenty of occasions where a non-pro took a better photo of something than a pro did, but it's not relevant. The non-pro wasn't expected to deliver a usable result. The pro was.</p>

<p>BTW, one thing people seem to forget is that in the film era, a professional was often someone who could take a photo and get a decent result because the average person could never be sure, given that there was no way to check the results before leaving the shoot. Being able to get a properly exposed result often counted for far more than getting a beautiful photo. I disagree with people who say that the standards have been lowered with digital - I think they've gone up, but we now see everything. We used to see just what got selected for print, and that wasn't always so great.</p>

<p>Respectfully disagree, Jeff. Never before have I seen so many poorly made photos now in print. It's amazing when you view magazines from the 80's and 90's and look at the quality of the product photography compared to today. Next time you pass a used book store, buy a Car & Driver mag from the 80's, another one from the 90's, and then stop at 7-11 and grab a current one. Don't compare the full page ad's but instead compare the photogrpahy that companies use in the 1/2 and 1/4 page ad's. It's a serious decline, imo.</p>

<p>One thing that has risen with digital photography is the amount of people in our audience that now accept mediocrity as a final result. Evidence is everywhere. I'm looking at fashion editorials now that look like they were pulled off model mayhem.</p>

 

<p>I think there may be some stylistic differences, the aesthetic has changed. Some of this is related to video, some of it is related to saturation of overly worked photos. I will make a music analogy. Punk rock was a reaction to the glossy California style of the early 1970s. Both have lasted. From a strictly technical viewpoint, one is "better" than the other, but the aesthetic is completely different.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of bands. I ask some of them (it's music-dependent) if they want a grubby "CBGBs 1974" look that I do sometimes. A lot of them take that. I get covers over that, because people are tired of slick and want "real." It's the same thing with TV except that "real" is as fake as everything else on there.</p>