Who wants to be a full-time pro?

[justinblack]

On a regular basis, I am approached by aspiring professional nature photographers, from high school

students to recent retirees, who want to know what they have to do to "make it." I do my best to offer

helpful advice, and I thought that in the interest of the enlightenment of aspirants, it would be

interesting to put the following questions before the group:

 

1) Who are the ten most successful nature photographers who come to mind?

 

2) What would you guess their average annual net is (that is, how much can they afford to pay

themselves after covering overhead and expenses)?

 

3) How many more years on average would you expect these photogs to be the dominant leaders in

their market(s)?

 

4) In comparison to these photogs, what would you guess a new nature photographer entering the

market can expect to net in each of their first five years?

 

5) What can a new nature photographer expect their average annual cost of doing business to be?

 

6) What financial goals should a new nature photographer set for home ownership, raising a family,

paying for college, retirement, etc.?

 

7) Is the size of the market for nature photographs growing or shrinking (in terms of dollar value)?

 

8) Is the pool of photographers supplying the market growing or shrinking?

 

9) What percentage of the photographers supplying the nature market depend on their photography for

their livelihood?

 

10) What sort of person should make plans to become a full-time nature photographer, as opposed to

being content with a fulfilling hobby as a serious amateur?

[jimstrutz]

Professional photography is like all the other artistry based professions. There are a few that get (semi)famous and make some good money, and the vast majority that struggle to survive, if that. Most finally give up and get a "real job," but in the mean time have wasted too many years.

 

Photography is a great thing to play with and make a few bucks, but most are never going to be able to pay the rent with it. Far too many people are willing to make far to many sacrifices for far too few dollars. Actors have the same issues, but are paid better at every level, and most of them are starving.

 

I have friends that are making it as professional photographers, but if they applied as much talent and energy in most other industries they would now be in a better position financially. But there are those few who really do make it work, so people go on believing in the dream. What these people need is a good case of disillusionment. :)

 

OK, that's pretty sour. And the flip side is, if it's what you really want to do...

 

Hmmm, nope. If it's what you really want to do, get a well paying career or trade started that you can support you while you try to transition into a photography business. That way you will have a good job to fall back into after failing miserably as a professional photographer. :)

[jimstrutz]

Sorry Justin, I just realized I have no answers to any of your questions.

[wildpicture]

I get such mails on a weekly basis too. Usually I start off by telling them that if a knew a certain method to make a good living as (fulltime) wildlife photographer, I would be one. :-)

 

Most questions (apart from the obvious questions from kids in primary school just asking about tools, hours and pay) I get are about which kind of education to pursue. My answer is mostly that photography skills are relatively easy to learn and what you need most is experience in handling your gear. I usually advise them if they are really keen on such a future to study their subjects, to get as much knowledge about it as possible. So rather take biology/zoology classes than photography/art classes. And do take some business classes as well, as in the end you still have to run a business and should have at least basic knowledge about financials and marketing.

 

The next advise is to get a job which allows them to spend as much time as possible close to their subjects. So being a ranger, a wildlife guide or such will allow them to spend as much time as possible with their subjects. That is great because you get to know your subjects and because you just have more photography opportunities. Then maybe, maybe in years they might start making enough money from photography to start thinking about working less hours in their daytime job and more as a photographer. Few may finally be able to make a complete switch. But even then, most will still need to have supplementary income sources. Such as a working (salary earning) partner, or from doing lectures, workshops, guiding tours etc.

 

Several years back, I was at that point too, thinking about which direction to head. Part of my decision was directed by having a house and mortgage, being married and having a wish to have kids. So I decided that working part-time in a "normal daytime job" would be a better/wiser solution then giving it all up and spend my days in a tent in the african bush. This way my job pays the bills and mortgage and provides for my family. And I can still do photography and travel without the constant push of having to get back with enough pictures that can be sold to help my family survive.

 

This way I was still able to do safari guide training in Africa almost a dozen years ago and at present I am enrolled at a master program in Wildlife Management. So to me it is having both things.

 

A few years ago John Shaw wrote a very good book on the subject of nature photography as a business. By now it will be partly outdated, but most of it is still very valid. One thing that has changed though (mainly coinciding with the arrival of digital photography) is the very large number of amateur photographers, who can now afford good equipment and lenses. Even just a few years ago there were not that many people seriously involved in nature photography. These days it sometimes seems as if every first year student has a digital camera with telelens and travels around the world to destinations which were exotic and mysterious just a few years ago...

[dave_nelson___atlanta__ga]

I have been thinking about starting my own photography business or going to work for someone who already has a successful business for a couple years now. My conclusion is that I am going to continue to wait and maybe start a business after I "retire" from my current career.

 

Some of the reasons:

- I see a lot of "professional" photographers working at the local camera stores for less than minimum wage and lousy commissions.

 

- The most financially successful photographers of today are making a bulk of their income from writing books about photography, giving lectures, training DVDs, etc... All of which use skills very different from taking a good photograph.

 

- The photographers I come in contact with who do make a living at it are doing the type of photography I have no interest in. They are sports photographers who hire a bunch of high school kids to shoot opening day then sell lousy packages to the parents. They are working in a studio all day cranking out portraits of people who do not appreciate their work. They are being flown to far away lands to take photos of war atrocities one day and sent down the street to get "the pet of the week" photo.

 

- Most of the photographers I have met are kidding themselves when they say they are making a living at it. They are making less than $30,000 a year and either sinking deeper in debt or leaning on their family to support them.

 

My response to a young person asking the question is to "do it young." The younger they are when they make mistakes the more likely they are to learn from it and the more likely they will be willing to live on nothing. They also may be more willing to take larger risks that might result in some great rewards.

[brian yarvin]

Hi Justin:

 

As a photography educator, former stock agency employee, and friend of many nature photographers, I'd like to offer my opinion on a couple of your questions:

 

7. In terms of dollar value, the size of the market is shrinking rapidly. The size of the market based on the number of sales is roughly unchanged for the past decade.

 

8. The "pool of photographers" is so huge it's hard to measure. Back in the eighties, I knew somebody who worked on the Sierra Club Calendars, at that time, there were roughly ten thousand photographers submitting (actual film by snail mail) for each picture used. I have no such metric for today, but it appears that there are many, many more people trying.

 

9. Based on the people I have spoken to at workshops and at agencies, I would say less than one percent.

 

Justin; it's tough to convey either the tiny-ness of the market or the degree of comeptition in a format like this one. Let's just say that the market is far more than flooded and that even as we speak, thousands of people who never tried it before are deciding to become nature photographers and all will insist that they can't believe that anybody else would have thought of the same thing.

 

That being said, people become movie stars and NASCAR drivers too, but you won't go anywere without the understanding that this is the sort of fight you're in for.

[Two23]

I once read that of people who actually get a degree in photography, very few of them ever get a full time job doing it. I've come to the conclusion that the ideal is to get a non-photo job that allows you access to the places you want to photo. For example, a nursing degree will allow you to live just about anywhere you want, and most hospitals will let you work 12 hour shifts meaning you have three, maybe even four days off to do what you want. I chose a job as a salesrep on the Northern Plains, and this lets me drive hundreds of miles a day on a schedule mostly of my choosing. Both of these kinds of jobs give you a good steady salary, benefits, a stable family life, and plenty of time to take photos. I sell a few stock photos (mostly non-nature,) have been a regular columnist for a magazine, and still send in articles to several national magazines. No way it would support me though, LOL! I too get emails etc. from people wanting to be a nature photographer. I give them the stark details--anything else would be doing them a disservice.

 

 

Kent in SD

[craig_shearman1]

It's so good to see an intelligent conversation on this topic rather than "what kind of camera should I buy to be a professional nature/wedding/newspaper photographer." I actually started off shooting professionaly -- working part time in high school and college as a sports photographer for a local newspaper, evolving into a darkroom tech and news photographer -- before becoming a reporter and eventually going into PR. I think starting young is important. Right now I have almost 30 years in writing and PR and a very good job I can't afford to walk away from. But if I had stuck with photography, I'd have 30 years experience and hopefully an equally good living at it. Whether I could have made it as a nature photographer or ended up shooting weddings or with a staff job at a newspaper is a different question. When I took film classes at NYU in the early 90s (thinking of a career shift to my first love, filmmaking), one of the older instructors said you most definitely CAN work in the movies. Maybe not as a director or producer but definitely as a camera opeator, sound tech, grip, gaffer, etc. Nature photography per se doesn't have as many slots to fill, but there are a lot of jobs where you can at least be working in photography and not driving a cab to buy film.

[enlightened-images]

A pop quiz????? Aw, geez, I knew I shoulda read the book instead of wasting my time playing video games!<br>

<br>

I recently posted a reply I made on another nature photo forum when someone asked about the passions and perils of "turning pro".<br>

<br>

Read my answer <a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com/views/2007/05/16/say-hallelujuah.htm"><b>here</b></a>. <br>

[dennis_j_smith]

I tried to change my hobby to a job. I do have a good job in computers, so I have my fall back. I decided to do weddings and portaits, and seel nature shots. The wedding and portaits were talking up a lot of time, so nature shots. Then everyone and their father brother cousin becomes a photographer doing wedding and portaits. ONe person cam to be and ask can you beat this price,$900, including an 30 page 8x10 albume and the negatives for an all day wedding. I said no. Someone gets a cammera, takes a few classes and they become an expert. They flood the market with unreasonable pricing. I stop my biz for now. All hte ones that started at the same time, work at a cammera shop, or somewhere else. But their biz is gone too.

 

<p>But that is not the point of the story. I stop shooting, even for my hobby. Sometimes, if you love what you are doing, it really does not pay to turn your passion into a job. I am now shooting again and planning trips and the such. but not to make a buck, to make me happy.

[DickArnold]

Please look at my bio. I started late in life and had an active business. However, I had to work quite hard to sustain the business. I made a lot more money for effort expended in my previous two careers which had nothing to do with photography. You have to generate cash flow. My answer to that was weddings, a steady part time newspaper job and PR for a large institution. I was retired from the previous two jobs. I had to have professional skills in my previous work that required a lot more training than it takes to learn photography. The real difficulty for me was not shooting skills but marketing, heavy work flow from weddings, and finally after seven years of operating a reasonably successful business I opted out because I was working harder than I wanted to for the money I got. I had a good time. I enjoyed photgraphing and meeting people. I did not enjoy sorting hundreds of pictures, keepiing my Quick Books updated, difficult wedding clients(not too many) and going to car wrecks at three in the morning for the paper. Someone said for the amount of effort you could probably do better financially in another profession. I agree. Had I not been so late in life I could have grown that business as I was making money and had developed good word of mouth. I just did not want to work that hard. However, it was a great experience and for the most part I enjoyed it. I think burn out, particularly with weddings is a real problem.

[qtluong]

Since nobody tried to answer all the questions, I will, but then, Justin, I want to read your own take as well :-)

 

1. In no order: Tom Mangelsen, Ken Duncan, Art Wolfe, Franz Lanting, Peter Lik, Rodney Lough, Roman Lorenc, Alain Briot, Christopher Burkett, Galen Rowell

2. Well over $500,000

3. A decade

4. Well less than $50,000

5. $25,000

6. Depends on many personal factors, but not unlike other professions

7. Growing, but slower than image use size

8. Growing, and faster than 7

9. a few % or less

10. Two type of persons: (a) those who cannot be happy doing anything else (b) those with exceptional abilities

[DickArnold]

It was only after I got out of the business that I had time for nature photography. Believe me it generates very little cash flow for me.

[dave.englund]

OOH! You guys are a merciless crowd! ;-)

 

Well, I'm one of those 50 year old's who's wondering if I could make the change over 15 years or so. In fact, I'm heading out in a few days on my own personal "workshop" - a vacation that includes the Badlands, Devil's Tower (- | - \ ) and Yellowstone National Park.

 

After buying my first pro DSLR camera and lenses at the beginning of the year, I'm just enjoying the passion. I have a full-time job as a software tester. And I'm single. So, photography is good place to invest some energy in my free time. For the most part it's fun. But I can already relate to one comment a couple of you made about workflow. The more images I take, the more time I spend at the computer at home working them in Photoshop (after spending all day at a computer at work).

 

Anyway, thanks for starting the discussion Justin. It's really helpful to hear y'all talk the facts of life. Sometimes reality bites;-) Well, I can decide on the "pro" thing later. Right now I'm gonna take a road trip and see the country side.

[larry w]

Far be it from me to deny the realities of the market place.

 

I don't think I've ever read anyone to say it was easy, or even that there was a decent chance to succeed ...

 

However ...

 

One has to chase their dreams (even if all they can manage are baby steps), or their life will be full of regret.

 

And lets not discount that lightning does strike ... And if you don't ever buy a lottery ticket, you certain are not going to win.

 

My advice to people, in general in life (not specifically about photography, as I'm not a professional myself ... YET ;-) ), is to never give up the dream, make sure you take care of business (and your responsibilities) ...

 

But don't take your eye off the ball either.

[justinblack]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed their thoughts on this. I'll add my answers to my

own questions, such as they are, but first I have a few comments on some things that have

been brought up.

 

Larry W.: "I don't think I've ever read anyone to say it was easy, or even that there was a

decent chance to succeed ..."

 

Very true, mostly what you hear is that it is "hard to become a successful nature

photographer," but I think even this is misleading. Becoming a lawyer or a doctor is "hard,"

in the sense that it takes a lot of hard work and study (not to mention expense) to gain the

credentials, and placement with better law firms and hospitals is quite competitive. Once

they start in the profession, however, most doctors and lawyers work and make a living.

On the other hand, becoming a full-time working nature photographer is not hard in this

sense at all. It is "hard" in the sense that most reasonably talented photographers who give

it a go, consistently producing publication-quality images and working hard at marketing,

find it impossible these days to make enough to even cover their basic expenses.

 

Quang-Tuan: Thanks for answering the questions. Here are my thoughts on the answers.

I'm afraid your appraisal of the economic realities of the market are rather optimistic. The

photographers on your list do not net an average of $500,000 per year. There are a few of

them on your list who do that much and in at some cases into the millions in gross

revenue in a typical year, these kinds of figures are generated by companies with much

larger overhead (think Mangelsen's many galleries), but based on my understanding of

their businesses, it is more realistic to expect the very top names in the industry to net

between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.

 

Also, there are at least two photographers on that list - the ones with big, high rent

galleries though you've never otherwise heard of them - who I believe bo

[ekovisions]

So here's the question that I think is more relevant for "aspiring pros," and one I've been wanting to ask you anyway, Justin: what ARE the photography-adjacent careers where the money is? That is, for the mere mortals among us who will probably never be able to make a reasonable living as a nature photographer, what kinds of jobs will allow us to fuel our passion in a professional context AND still eat?

[justinblack]

Hi Kelly,

 

That really is an excellent question. Here's a partial list of jobs that deal with photography

or work with photographers in one way or another besides actually making photographs.

They are more or less lucrative (as with most things in the arts, mostly less, though there

are exceptions).

 

- Intellectual Property Attorney: Litigate and negotiate settlement of infringements for

copyright infringement.

 

- Gallery owner, curator, or sales

 

- Photo Editor: Magazines, calendar companies, book publishers, stock agencies, etc.,

need photo editors.

 

- Art Director: Hire and oversee photographers for advertising shoots, direct the look of

advertising or editorial products.

 

- Photoshop Technician: Broad range of applications

 

- Fine Printer: People with superior Photoshop skills, finely tuned aesthetic sensibilities,

and a thorough understanding of color management are in demand to produce "fine-art"

quality prints for photographers

 

- Graphic Designer

 

- Photographer's Rep: Commercial photographers sometimes work with reps to handle

much of the promotion side of their business.

 

 

- Stock Photo Sales: Negotiate photo licensing fees with end users. This field has shrunk

as stock becomes more and more automated and more and more royalty-free.

 

 

- Image Keyworder: A client can't find an image in an online collection unless it is well

keyworded. I was really good at this when I was working in stock back in the late 1990s,

but I found it really tedious. This is a job for someone with a good vocabulary, good

attention to detail, and an understanding of the client's point of view.

 

- Digital Workflow Consultant: There is a market for people who have a detailed

understanding of best practices for structuring digital workflow for a photography

business, and who can set up, troubleshoot, and update these systems for photographers.

 

- Photo Industry Writer: You know the articles you see online and in photo mags talking

about new photo gear and such? A lot of those people are essentially amateur

photographers who write professionally about photography.

 

- Picture Framer

 

- Photographer's Assistant

 

- Photographer's Studio Manager

 

- Photo Workshop Organizer

 

- Publisher

 

My job is an interesting one, in that it is rare and perhaps unique. In essence, I am a part-

time professional photographer, gallery curator, workshop instructor, workshop organizer,

marketing manager, human resources manager, stock photo rep, fine print maker, graphic

designer, etc. I also act from time to time as a sort of scaled-down version of a copyright

attorney, negotiating out-of-court settlements of copyright infringements.

 

All this said, I think that for someone who actually wants to photograph seriously (but not

necessarily as a career), the best thing to do is to find a rewarding career that allows you

to live somewhere that you like to photograph, and that provides enough free time to do

it. Then, in terms of deriving some satisfaction in terms of public recognition (and sales)

of your work, the local/regional arts market is always a workable outlet.

[jwhite3.0]

"I have always said that if someone has to ask whether they should pursue a career in photography, they most certainly shouldn't!"

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this but some of the best individuals at any craft lack confidence. One name that comes to mind is Marvin Gaye. Always doubted and second-guessed his talent but undoubtedly a great talent. So, when someone asks for advice the best approach is to be honest and relay the realities (many covered here).

 

Justin, this is an excellent question you posed. Thank you, I enjoy getting insight into other professions. Sidenote, which tripod should I get to mount a Leica 1200mm f/8:)

[justinblack]

Good point John. My point wasn't to suggest that one had to be ultra-confident in order to

become a successful nature photographer, but more that they should feel like that it is

what they are called to do - almost as if they can't imagine doing anything else. In other

words, if one goes through a process like this: "Well, on the one hand I could be a nature

photographer, and on the other, I could also be a...," then this probably isn't a profession

to get into. It takes real drive, self-motivation, a burning desire to succeed, and more to

make it work.

[the lone ranger]

1) Who are the ten most successful nature photographers who come to mind? Galen, Art Wolfe, Art Morris, Frans Lanting, Peter Lik, Rodney Lough, Tom Mangelsen, David Muench, George Lepp, and everybody else who gone broke yet.<p>

 

2) What would you guess their average annual net is (that is, how much can they afford to pay themselves after covering overhead and expenses)? 60k to 250k<p>

 

3) How many more years on average would you expect these photogs to be the dominant leaders in their market(s)? 5 to 15 yrs<p>

 

4) In comparison to these photogs, what would you guess a new nature photographer entering the market can expect to net in each of their first five years? $1500 to $15000<p>

 

5) What can a new nature photographer expect their average annual cost of doing business to be? $2,000 to $20,000<p>

 

6) What financial goals should a new nature photographer set for home ownership, raising a family, paying for college, retirement, etc.? whatever it takes to stay afloat after major medical health problems.<p>

 

7) Is the size of the market for nature photographs growing or shrinking (in terms of dollar value)? Growing but supply is outgrowing even faster.<p>

 

9) What percentage of the photographers supplying the nature market depend on their photography for their livelihood? 10%<p>

 

10) What sort of person should make plans to become a full-time nature photographer, as opposed to being content with a fulfilling hobby as a serious amateur? Somebody who hates the thought of working under somebody else and is willing to accept the trade-offs of having a steady paycheck with benefits. or in some cases just a paycheck w/o benefits! :-o<p>

[qtluong]

<i>but based on my understanding of their businesses, it is more realistic to expect the very top names in the industry to net between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.</i>

<p>

It could be very well that your estimate is more realistic, and I do not dispute your knowledge of the business of at least one of the photographers on the list :-), however I know another that is certainly not a "top name" (almost unknown outside of some online circles), who does just that without even working full time.

<p>

<i>

Also, there are at least two photographers on that list - the ones with big, high rent galleries though you've never otherwise heard of them - who I believe bo </i>

<p>

?

<p>

<i>

the best thing to do is to find a rewarding career that allows you to live somewhere that you like to photograph, and that provides enough free time to do it

</i>

<p>

I couldn't agree more. Once you get into the business of photography, there are lots of things to do that are not necessarily fun and do not have anything to do with the creation of photographs.

<p>

 

 

<i>Art Morris, George Lepp</i>

<p>

I didn't include them on my list since I suspect they derive more of their income from secondary activities (such as teaching or operating a retail business) than from the sale or licensing of photographs... nothing wrong with that, it's certainly a very sound way to diversify, but it is only indirectly related to the creation of photographs.

[justinblack]

Ah yes, Quang-Tuan, I think half of one of my posts got lost when the database went

down. What I was getting at is:

 

Also, there are at least two photographers on that list - the ones with big, high rent

galleries though you've never otherwise heard of them - who I believe bought their way

into the business with resources that were not earned through photography. In other

words, they set themselves up with a stack of cash, and felt perfectly comfortable referring

to themselves as master photographers in their marketing though their photographs are

unexceptional. No authentic "master photographers" that I am aware of refer to

themselves as such. Their high-octane sales staff would have the general public believe

that they are respected on the level of photographers who have earned their reputations

through talent and a lot of hard work and sacrifice.

[josh mcculloch]

Just had a few thoughts on a related side-note...

<p>

It is very important for amateur/aspiring/part-time professional nature photographers

(and all photographers for that matter) to understand the importance of pricing their work

properly. I hear photographers all the time that say they are going to sell work for really

cheap (or give it away!) just to get published, and when they have more experience, they

will raise their rates. This creates a problem, as there will always be someone with the

same mentality coming up behind them who will do the same thing, making it difficult for

the first guy to make a living! The aspring professional, or just the well-off semi-retired

hobby nature photog has a huge responsibility to maintain (or even increase) the value of

the profession and work.

<p>

Cheers, Josh

[the lone ranger]

I will add that by giving work away, that isn't really selling nor creating a client / seller relationship so how is that going to advance someone's career? So what about being published? It's not really as exciting as the idea seems. You can't exactly go to that person and ask for a four digit sum down the road once you've always established that you are a source for .25 cent photos. I could have sold a few images for several thousand dollars total a few weeks ago but if I had allowed unlimited rights to them. For those rights I asked for a five digit sum because I didn't rally want to do royalty free. I didn't get what I asked for just as I expected, so I countered with a lower sum but with restrictions on the rights. They weren't willing to go for restrictions so we left things at that. They said they'd come back for rights-managed purposes in the future if they needed them for anything in particular. Sounds good to me. Yes, $3,000 sounds good at first but look at what it will do to the future value of the images. That would make my images worthless beyond the $3,000 I woudl have made now. I probably coudln't ever sell them for any future covers, ads, certain magazines, calendars, etc... one sale of which could potentially be more lucrative than $3,000. To me it just didn't seem like a smart business decision to accept those terms for that fee. sure other phoographers sold their images to them for those terms and that is fine. it just wasn't the right deal for what I want to do w/ my own images.