Photography Profession Fading Fast

[jeffc1]

<p>I had no idea how bad the economy was going to be when I decided to turn my 20-year photography hobby into a business about 10-years ago. I knew that one day technology was going to slow the profession way down, because I seen and felt some of that even back then, but I was also hoping that I was wrong and that it would be short lived. Techology advancements from camera manufactures not only continued, it went in to hyper-drive, which continued to affect the photography profession. The manufactures, with no consideration for the real professionals, even started to market their lower end products on TV commercials as " buy this digital camera and get professional results". Many like to capture images, and many "photographers" were coming out of the woodwork like hungry little termites, especially with the possibility of being able to make a few bucks regardless of quality and knowledge. "One mans junk is another mans treasurer" as the quote goes, and there is a lot of junk and many many treasure chests out there.<br>

Look at the once was high end professionals out there that were so saught after. They travel around now giving high hopes and driving excitement into the minds of many want to be photographers by marketing manufacturers products and their own how to DVD's, books and gimics. Why aren't they doing photography anymore? Answer: because the photography market is flat and has been for some time. Selling photography products to people and charging for seminars is big, fast, money now. They will continue this trend until it too fades. And it will. Then what?<br>

The, "then what", now becomes the economy. All because of greed and the lack of quality. What a sad mess! Sad for me, and many like me that continue to have values, along with common sense, but will not be able to continue seeking the dream, or the chance, of striving to be one of the best.<br>

Just my thoughts put to words.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I don't believe that the NYT hired a soccer mom with a D40x to <strong><a href="../street-documentary-photography-forum/00S7Og">shoot this recent collection</a></strong>. And I think that <strong><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SKip">Bill Frakes</a></strong> would probably have a bone to pick with you.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>You could have been a typesetter instead...</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>No Matt, but there are pleanty of people who bought into the Digi cam thinking it would do the profesional job they could not do with film. They drank the KoolAid and found it was the same old thing. The problem is they now accept the unprofesional results. </p>

[johnkotrla]

<p>ok, so I clicked on the link you put in Mr Laur, and quite frankly I think the soccer mom with the D40x who has had a few months of practice with her alien bee 400's could have done a much better job. </p>

<p>I read the thread and without even comparing these portraits to "Avedon, Mapplethorpe, Penn, Arnold Newman,Albert Watson, Karsh" they are very poorly done. If this is what professionals produce for the most powerful man in the country, they need to rethink their product offerings and spend less time whining about people stealing their business.</p>

<p>I've managed several different business and can tell you that whether you are selling food, cars, or houses no one can "steal" your business. The most competitive will win the business, the less competitive will lose the business. If you are selling "photography products" like the OP, you are always going to lose out on price. Sell the portrait <b>experience</b>, not the 16x20 Lustre print that they can get themselves from Adorama for $4.95.</p>

<p>People want to feel special. It used to be that the only way to get a good portrait was to go to a pro, they would fix you up (for those that had an on staff MUA) and pose you in different outfits. You would be the center of attention for a while and afterwards you would have proof of how 'amazing' you are. Now they can get the proof at home. Sell the <b>experience</b>.</p>

<p>And the whole 13 photos in one day? c'mon. Unless you are having to spend time and get to know these people to figure out how to photograph them to adequately display their personality it <i>shouldn't</i> take you more than 3 or 4 minutes. It's an assembly line product they've produced and they are, mysteriously, proud of it.</p>

<p>Bottom line, if you are losing business, it's not because the "evil camera companies" marketed the cameras to your customers, it's because you no longer have anything of value to offer to your customers. Find a new way to give them value, or find a new job. It's not Canon's job to keep you in business.</p>

<p>Just my $4.23 (would be 2¢ but I'm trying to keep up with inflation)</p>

[tibz]

<blockquote>

<p>No Matt, but there are pleanty of people who bought into the Digi cam thinking it would do the profesional job they could not do with film. They drank the KoolAid and found it was the same old thing. The problem is they now accept the unprofesional results.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's the biggest problem: people's acceptance.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I wasn't commenting on the aesthetics of those NYT political editorial shots. I was pointing out that a professional photographer and his crew very much <em>were</em> sought out to do a high profile job. If the OP's point is that there <em>are</em> working professionals being sought out, but that they're just not very good any more, then that's a different rant.<br /><br />Regardless, John, you're right about the main point: it's up to any professional service provider - especially in a creative field - to <em>educate</em> prospective customers about why their services matter. The market for creative services has <em>nerver</em> been static. Rembrandt had to evolve his practices during his career, just like Annie Leibovitz has had to evolve hers. Just like wedding pros are now serving a wildly different set of expectations than they were a decade ago. But I don't see fewer fashion magazines full of carefully produced images. I don't see fewer corporate head shots being produced. I don't see fewer architects wanting their work to be recorded and celebrated.<br /><br />I do see plenty of people buying decent enough cameras - and still asking a pro to do the work when they know it really matters. People with no thought as to why that would matter aren't usually the ones that would pay liveable pro rates anyway. It's always been that way.<br /><br />And... in case you haven't noticed, working pros now have tools at their disposal that they've never had before, too. Consumers have shiny new toys, and pros have shiny new tools. They're just objects and tools. The experience that the customer looks forward to and mentions by word of mouth to others - what John mentions above - that's what makes it all happen and preserves the wider appreciation of the profession.</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p><b><i>Opportunities multiply as they are seized. - Sun Tzu</i></b><br>

Sorry I don't buy the tech is damaging the pro photographer industry. I heard that argument before when 35mm started to challenge medium format. I am right now using some minor tech, and technique to challenge some of the more established shooters. I am using cost cutting measures to maximize profits. I find if I can work smarter andnot harder, I can devote more time to customer service.<br>

The trick here is to match strength against weakness. I can do things that a lot of my competitors can't. I am using the tech. The soccer mom shooters have been for 20 years or more. If I see potential competition threat it is as papers go nuclear, more hungry photojournalist will be in the commercial market.<br>

These guys know the tech how to work fast with no budget. I know because that was my roots. The other issue what is your market you are targeting? Are targeting the carrion or the top of the food chain. If someone does not want to pay for service and quality then that is not the customer I need to target.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I think a lot of photographers over-value what they provide. For years, before digital, photographers were often hired simply to make sure that there were results. It was harder to get exposure right, focus, etc. etc. With digital, there is no reason to hire someone just to make sure there are results. These people were never concerned with having ultimate quality, they wanted photographs to be there.</p>

<p>I don't think camera manufacturers have anything to do with it. The world changes - that's why I made the comment above about typesetters. Either you change with it or you don't, but if you dont, the kind of complaining and fingerpointing above is certainly not useful.</p>

<p>I'm losing business to internet video - before broadband was widely available and server storage became really cheap, photographs were the best way to show sports online. Now, with video, it's not. I only get work because I come back from a shoot, typically around midnight, and crank out all my photos by 3AM. If I didn't do that, I would be out of work. It really isn't the quality of photos that keeps me working, although they do appreciate that, it's how I do things. I could have just said, "The customers don't appreciate quality and are greedy," but I just adapted to what would make the sale. If the video people can ever get edits down to a two hour job, I'm done. What fan wouldn't rather watch the video of a sports event than look at twenty photos?</p>

<p>I'm doing regular magazine work too, but magazines are dying. I could whine about that, but it's just something I see going away and I just have to prepare for that.</p>

<p>Understanding the market and figuring out what to do is always better than complaining or attacking the customers or making ridiculous comments about Kool-Aid. All of this is defeatist and will never result in any new business. I figure I have to start shooting video or just find more work outside of photography.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Technology has not somehow replaced Talent and Art. And they are some of the qualities that images must have if people are going to be willing to pay money for, in order to have a large photograph , with <strong>real</strong> content, hanging over the couch in the living room......</p>

[bob_lazzarini]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1487895">Bob Cossar</a> Feb 09, 2009; 11:04 p.m.<br>

Technology has not somehow replaced Talent and Art.<br /> And they are some of the qualities that images must have if people are going to be willing to pay<br /> money for, in order to have a large photograph, with <strong>real</strong> content, hanging over the couch in the<br /> living room.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen Brother!<br /> :O)</p>

[kevin_oconnell1664880348]

<p>Photoshop, HDR, Panostitch software and so much more just a click of a button on most of this new technology and you can have a picture that looks like a masterpeice without knowing much about photography. I love this profession, so just keep on doing what i love and try different traditional techniques that seem to still do well. This economy is my enemy this year.</p>

[ed_gerken]

We're an image-based society. High-power photos and ads are everywhere. The images have to come from somewhere.

Check out the Drudge Report. He can find an image to convey his headline, where does he buy them? That's just one example.

 

As old doors are closed, new ones open. Until we're upgraded to Light 1.1, all the old techniques still work, just apply them to the new

markets.

 

The plethora of compact consumer digitals have pushed the megapixel race beyond comprehension and image quality is

down. Shouldn't take much to make the pitch that your images will far surpass what Aunt Matilda might capture. When I shot

weddings, I'd do the setup and get my shots, then step the heck out of the way and let the barrage begin. I never had a

competition issue between my shots and those of the guests or relatives. When I shot alongside other pros, I more often

heard afterwards that my shots were preferred by the bride and groom. The "DIY" shooters never bothered me and still

shouldn't. I'm in the "there's more to it than auto-everything" camp.

 

Give them something the others don't. It's already been stated, but bears repeating. And a spell-check won't hurt in conveying a professional appearance. Like it or not, you're a package deal and you need to build trust and confidence in every way possible.

 

OTOH, I got out of weddings 10 years ago. Might be I couldn't stand it long enough to find out if I could still compete.

 

-Ed (who, speaking of professional appearance, wonders why his carefully composed paragraphs always end up in one long lump of words!)

[l_e]

<p>I have a completely different take.<br>

I believe more affordable cameras and technology reinforce the need for a professional photographer. As a wedding photographer I have seen lots of people with all manner of cameras. It is more and more common where a guest will have equipment as good, or BETTER, than mine. And yet, I still manage to produce better images (at least in the opinions of the clients and wedding guests that I have heard from).<br>

Bottom line - the equipment does not make the 'art'.</p>

<p>BTW, my wedding business is booming. We are full for 2009 and already booking several for 2010.</p>

<p>Rather than spend all of the energy worrying about what you can not control you might want to improve your craft and your business skills.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Rather than spend all of the energy worrying about what you can not control you might want to improve your craft and your business skills.]]</p>

<p>Well said.</p>