Times Getting Harder to Earn $ in Photography...

<p>....so says the LA Times today:</p>

<p>

<p >http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-onthemedia22-2010jan22,0,4822231.column</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"<em>Many fear that the technology providing entree to an unimaginable trove of art, images and information is also obliterating the boundaries that once allowed the creative class to make a living...."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >...so lets not quit our day jobs yet...what are your thoughts on this article?</p>

</p>

<p>Just check out the statistics of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics for photographers <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos264.htm">here</a> .</p>

<p>I can see someone flipping burgers making more money than your average Joe with a DSLR wanting to take pictures on the side for weddings or events. Numbers don't look good even for full time professional photographers.</p>

<p>What was a skill is now commonplace. Anyone can take a picture. They may not be able to do it well, but they can certainly do it cheap.</p>

<p>Perhaps cameras are commonplace, but skill is still rare? </p>

<p>And these days, people are not quality-centric...they want a good price.</p>

<p>"My point & shoot has 15MP....just like the pro DSLR's....yea!...."</p>

 

<p>I think this is true for most artists and creative people. But I think it is true of many other sectors of the economy too. A couple of years ago, I saw this coming (along with the help of Gerald Celente). I downsized and eliminated all my overhead and credit debt. I moved from a big house into a smaller town home for $550 a month, sold my new car and bought a paid-for older vehicle, and diversified my work to include commercial work (which I hadn't had to do in years), design and web development, books, and software development. It was a 180 from where I wanted to be, but it's kept me afloat. Personally, I think it will be a long time before we see the creative market come back to where it was... if ever.</p>

<p>Angel, that is a very interesting BOLA report. a) I think they are optimistic about the true number of photographers in 2018, and b) Yikes... that salary seems awfully low to me. You can barely buy a M9 and Summilux for that money.</p>

<p>Digital: turned bums into photographers, and photographers into bums.</p>

<p>Nicely put Dave.</p>

<p>Did I mention that my daughter is majoring in art and photography? ;)</p>

<p>People are becoming good photographers with inexpensive and easy to use cameras. They are learning to use photo manipulation programs to make their photographs even better. Many people will be satisfied with good photographs.</p>

<p>Why should anyone pay for a photograph they can make themselves. That doesn't make sense. You have to be able to make a photograph much better than the average person can produce themselves to be able to sell it. Photographers must learn their craft very well. The camera is only the beginning. You had better become a master of the computer, too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm an amateur without a specialty and doubt that I would ever pay anyone to take pictures. I also often volunteer photography for friends in the same way I'd help a friend build a fence.</p>

<p>This is consistent with the values of amateurism; the same way we tackle simple plumbing jobs, build our own speakers, computers, or construct our own web sites, remodel our own kitchen.</p>

<p>It has little to do with thinking we're better than professionals, rather these are opportunities to learn and expand our broad base tangible skills.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't buy into these kinds of doom and gloom things, I have always believed in "Go Big or Go Home". There are plenty of clients out there for brilliant shooters who know their market.<br>

I know some shooters who are just killing it, making a fortune. I had my biggest year by far in 08, but then the economy went bust and it dropped a ton. Like Michael Axel, I kept debt free and paid off all vehicles, so I am still hanging in there. I would be back up to a good level if it were not for taking this year off to do a big personal project.<br>

But business is picking back up, right when I need to not to, LOL! There is still collectively billions to be made in photography, but you have to be at the top of your game and blow your competition out of the water.<br>

That is what I intend to do, in a niche that most are not in. By the way Mark, I strongly disagree about the photo manipulations making photographs even better, none of my clients really care for fauxtography, nor do I, even in the commercial world. <br>

And I have no choice, photography is all I know and I will do it full time until I can no longer see. </p>

<p>not only in photography...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Times Getting Harder to Earn $ in Photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same as any other trade.</p>

<p>Economic cycle aside, every technology transition in photography (35mm, color, now digital) will leave some in the dust and allow new blood to flourish, just like in any other trade. The combination of digital and the web definitely creates great opportunities for the creation and exhibition of photography. For those who don't make a living from photography, or those who don't think good photography should only be afforded by the well heeled, that's a good thing.</p>

<p>Daniel Bayer, I guess Ansel Adams was a "fauxtographer" by your definition because he "cheated" by using a darkroom to master his negatives and his prints, in the same ways we do it today in the digital darkroom.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, what matters is the print and not how we got there.</p>

<p>But like you and Mike, I too down sized, and economized in 2008, having no consumer debt; just mortgages offset by tenents.</p>

<p>I see this same thing happening in the IT field too....off-shoring IT development work to India, and most often getting sub-quality results, but most corps are okay with that because it's not about quality....it's about "saving" money...same for photography....many customers put saving $$ above quality....they think "good enough is good enough"...sadly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel Bayer, I guess Ansel Adams was a "fauxtographer" by your definition because he "cheated" by using a darkroom to master his negatives and his prints, in the same ways we do it today in the digital darkroom.<br /> At the end of the day, what matters is the print and not how we got there.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>When I was in high school and learned just how much he did to his images in the darkroom, I lost respect for his work. I have more respect for people like Michael Kenna, Franz Lanting, Galen Rowell, Ernst Haas, Joel Sartore, etc, all who have had images sell as art too.<br /> <br />To more and more people I encounter, it absolutely matters how people got there, the excuse you give is what photo enthusiasts who lack raw talent give, not what the general public does. The journey we take in life matters, not always the destination.<br /> I was a gallery opening last night in which a lot of people said the same thing, well to do art buying people who really see no point in paying for someone's computer generated art when the real thing can be still found and it gets right to the point in terms of brilliance. <br /> <br />But the most amazing thing was the fact that a lot of these people were truly disappointed that in a valley full of art and artists, there was no longer a true darkroom workshop environment to be had at Anderson Ranch, Colorado Mountain College, etc. As one lady put it, she wants to be among people who actually *see* the world through the lens, not poop it out of a computer as she so put it. <br /> <br />This is the way it is going, computer art is going to have very little to no value in the future unless it truly stands out from other computer art and why should it if it is so easy and every flickr head in existence does it? So if one has talent, they can choose either medium to achieve their goals, but if they choose to use non-computer related tools to achieve their art, well there is already widely acknowledged added value in that. <br />This will only become stronger as more and more people get tired of computer generated fake photography.<br /> This is brutal for enthusiasts to hear, but it is absolutely what I am finding out, that is why I am dumping digital except for full motion work and getting back to reality.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>computer art is going to have very little to no value in the future unless it truly stands out from other computer art</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's been true of photography for a very long time.</p>

<p>Whether you measure it by quantity or percentage more people are making a living as artists than at any other time in human history.</p>

<p> </p>