"Professional" Photographer

<p>Honestly, is it still possible to be one, given all the technology? If you are earning a consistent living, how do you do it? All the Pro's I know have the same clients but do the work needed in digital.</p>

<p>The work is still out there, though the wedding photography business collapsed somewhat when digital came around. With a digital camera, everybody thinks they are a professional photographer, so prices for weddings fell through the floor compared to 10+ years ago. I worked for a wedding photographer who was quite successful, shooting weddings and commercial work. The wedding business changed with digital, and though he also began to shoot some digital at receptions, all the formals were still shot with a Mamiya RZ67. I don't think it is easy to suddenly earn enough to make ends meet, but the work is out there if you're willing to work hard for it. </p>

<p>Why would technology mean that it isn't possible to be a "professional" photographer? I'm all digital and make my living primarily by licensing editorial stock to book publishers. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "professional photographer" is.<br /><br />I make it work by specializing and offering images that can't easily be found on iStock and the like.</p>

<p>They sell spanners, pipe grips and wire cutters in hardware stores too but you can still make a living as a mechanic, plumber or electrician.</p>

<p>I don't understand...</p>

<p><strong>Film = Professional</strong>, and <strong>Digital = Amateur</strong>?</p>

<p>So when I was shooting film and thought I was an amateur, I was really a pro, and now that shoot digital and think I'm a professional, I'm really an amateur?</p>

<p>Shhhh... Please don't tell any of my clients!</p>

 

<p>This is disappointing. I've just sent e-mail out to everyone who has paid for my digital-workflow images in the last few months, and offered refunds because I'm no longer to be considered seriously. I hope that wasn't a mistake. And that lady on Sunday, who cried a bit when she saw the proofs from the shoot I did with her horse (and said that when she uses <em>her</em> digital camera, they just never look like that) - man, she's going to be upset to know that it turns out I'm a non-film-using hack. *sigh*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film = Professional, and Digital = Amateur?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All image recording mediums are equal... but some are more equal than others!</p>

<p><em><strong>"Paper and Crayon"</strong></em> is a new imaging technology with only very inexperienced workers currently attempting it. As soon as I can find a buyer for my obsolete camera camera gear, I'll be the first in my area to market this novel approach..........Robert</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Honestly, is it still possible to be one, given all the technology? If you are earning a consistent living, how do you do it? All the Pro's I know have the same clients but do the work needed in digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These sentences are obviously mysterious, unclear, and may imply many things that most of us will not agree. One of the question that may be implied is that: Can anyone still be a Pro and not doing the work needed in digital?</p>

<p>Yes, I know some great professional photographers who are still using 35mm film. They do like digital and computers but are not familiar, not comfortable with them</p>

<p>If:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Film = Professional</strong>, and <strong>Digital = Amateur</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All image recording mediums are equal</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then:</p>

<p><strong>Amateur = Professional</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Syllogisms are fun. :-)</p>

<p>Robert, I have seen some amazing things done with crayon that are done by professionals, not amateurs. And all those pros will agree that you have to buy crayons that cost 4 to 5 times as much as the junk the amateurs use.</p>

<p> Well wedding photography is a brutal business. It would be better to work at the hardware store. I am a Registered Nurse and have been happy with that most of the time over the years. Not sure about the film vs digital component of the thread but people make a living shooting both. If I were to shoot weddingx I would probably shoot digital. However in some of the University Artsy communities shooting film may be a good gig. I used to shoot film until yesterday when my camera broke. Now I shoot 100% digital but I am going to buy a new film camera as soon as I find one that I can bond with. I want a film rig that will not break under tough conditions.</p>

<p>Bob, I've often considered dabbling in the ultimate digital medium -- finger painting.</p>

<p>But seriously, I did see a few pieces done by the mentally ill in crayon at a museum exhibit. One of the artists' work was amazingly good, and I would not have guessed that her medium was crayon, had there not been the notation on the card. I think it might have been heat-pressed to diffuse the colors.</p>

<p>Even though the OP may imply that Professionals must use film but nobody ever says (or thinks) that whoever uses film must be a professional. So we didn't have the equations in Sarah's syllogism, only an implication</p>

<p><strong>Professional --> Use film</strong><br />This is one way, not two way (and I'm not saying that it's correct or not)</p>

<p>John, I'm sticking to my conclusion anyway:</p>

<p><strong>Amateur = Professional</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>:-)</strong></p>

<p>How 'bout film in Medium Format - any work there? Has anybody made any $$ with that "new" Ektar that's been out awhile - did clients ask for film?</p>

<p>No, this is not in any way a film Vs. digital discussion. 'Just want to know what's going on out there - if there's anything happening beyond the bounds of being a "serious amateur".</p>

<p>I'm thinking of Sarah's axiom: Amateur= Serious Amateur=Professional and the Corollary: Film=Medium format=Digital (Note: no proof is ever needed) :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>did clients ask for film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In many cases, even when the clients do not ask for film, the professionals still use it because it's the prints that matter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No, this is not in any way a film Vs. digital discussion. 'Just want to know what's going on out there - if there's anything happening beyond the bounds of being a "serious amateur".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You're asking if there are still professional photographers? Yes, digital has made imaging more accessible, print is on the decline, and the proliferation of stock agencies has created a lot of supply, but of course there are still thousands of professional photographers - photojournalists, sports, weddings, portraits, pets, nature, products, architecture, advertising, fine art - still plenty.</p>

<p>D, open your phone book, and you'll see plenty of pro photographers listed there. The profession is hurting greatly, but it is still being practiced.</p>

<p>Regarding medium format, the best photographer in Virginia (or so he claims... {ahem!}) does some very pedestrian work with medium format film. I think he has a hassie. Nice equipment, but no creative vision, IMO. Even so, he does manage to convince some people he's the best photographer in all of Virginia, so he does manage to sell his work. Perhaps it helps when one refers to one's self in the third person by last name only, with spaces added, e.g. "Congratulations, F o x has consented to bestow upon you her creative brilliance." But yes, photographers can still turn a buck in medium format film.</p>

<p>PS, John, it's a perfectly correct conclusion deriving from the stated premises! ;-)</p>

<p><em>"Congratulations, F o x has consented to bestow upon you her creative brilliance."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Ah.....would that it were only so.......</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bob, I've often considered dabbling in the ultimate digital medium -- finger painting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's no good, you can't do re-prints. You need to carve the image in reverse into half of a potato and print from that.</p>

<p>My last three weddings all done with the Nikon D3X and I did not do it for cheap, neither I do it for every one, digital work all ok for such work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And all those pros will agree that you have to buy crayons that cost 4 to 5 times as much as the junk the amateurs use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reminded me of this: <a href="http://www.apassion4jazz.net/jazz-sax.html">http://www.apassion4jazz.net/jazz-sax.html</a></p>

<p>It's harder now to survive as a professional photographer and there seem to be fewer people doing it. At the same time, I see no fewer people claiming to be professionals.</p>

<p>The trick is (as it really has always been) to pursue the top rung. There is still a good living available for the best, but you have to convince yourself, and then your clients that you are the best.</p>

<p>Walk the walk and talk the talk. Show nothing but your best, make sure your presentation is impeccable, present well written but un-intimidating contracts, pay attention to spelling and grammar in everything you write, answer the phone professional rather than having your mother-in-law pick up in the kitchen, dress well..... </p>

<p>It's the whole package that sells and those who instill confidence will get the work</p>