Is there really less people earning a full time living from photography than ten/twenty years ago?

[steve_johnston9]

<p><em></em>Is the Digital age really killing photography as a profession? I have read several articles, and in fact read comments on these and other forums about how digital is killing photography as a profession. </em><br>

<em></em>Problems seem to include: </em><br>

<em></em>Amateurs working for free or low cost.</em><br>

<em></em>Ease of use digital cameras and technological advances, that can correct incorrect images such as RAW and Photoshop.</em><br>

<em></em>The de-valuing of images, due to high availability of images.</em><br>

<em></em>High ownership of SLRs. </em><br>

<em></em>But when I look out there seems indicators that point the other way:</em><br>

<em></em>People have more disposable incomes than say twenty years ago (even with the recession), and therefore more money to spend on photography for events i.e. weddings. </em><br>

<em></em>Selling photos through new outlets ie. stock agencies.</em><br>

<em></em>Other roles arising such as teaching/training</em><br>

<em></em>Is there really less people earning a full time living from photography than ten/twenty years ago? Or is it that there are more people attracted to this profession so it has become harder to succeed at it?</em></p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>I'll keep my answer brief as this question can be answered depending on one's POV.</p>

<p>The question is difficult, if not impossible to quantify.<br>

The answer will depend on who you talk to.</p>

<p>There is no question the (role) of the photographer has been totally redefined due to the digital age.</p>

<p>Are there less traditional approaches to the profession of photographer might be the better question.<br>

Yes would be the simple answer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Selling photos through new outlets ie. stock agencies</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stock agencies are not new..online agencies are.</p>

 

[mark_ritz]

<p>According to the BLS, 11 years ago 66,070 people made their living as 27-4021, Photographers. Earning an average of $25,710 (1999 US$)<br>

In May, 2009, 57,760 people made their living as 27-4021. They earned an average of $36,370 (2009 US$)<br>

Adjusting for inflation, $25,710 in 1999 is equal to $35,419 in 1999. 14% fewer professionals made 3% more money 2009 vs. 1999.<br>

1997 is online too, but you asked 10/20 year ago, not 12 or 13 ;)</p>

[steve_solomon2]

<p>Well, Steve, in my opinion, you may be correct. I can tell you from personal experience that the "digitization" of photography (and print/publishing) has all but eliminated traditional graphic artists. My father-in-law was a premier graphic artist with a thriving New York City business about 30 years ago. When things went digital, it affected his businesss to the point that he had to retire a little sooner than planned. As for photography, I feel that with the proliferation of digital cameras, everyone thinks that if they have a high-quality DSLR, they're a "photographer". I'm not a wedding photographer, but can only imagine how a wedding pro must feel when Aunt Tillie shows up with a Nikon D3S or a Canon 5D Mark II. I <strong><em>strongly</em></strong> feel that there is <strong><em>always</em></strong> a place for a true <strong>professional</strong>, as the amateur cannot duplicate the Pro's work regardless of what equipment they "bring to the party"! Just my 2 cents.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>but can only imagine how a wedding pro must feel when Aunt Tillie shows up with a Nikon D3S or a Canon 5D Mark II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the ones with Holgas that worry me ;)</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Folks asked this same question in the 1980's, 1970's and 1960's too. It always gets blamed on the newer equipment; amateurs working for free; "that it is easier".</p>

<p>It probably is a whine as old as photography itself.</p>

<p>Folks said it was due to cameras that could use roll films; that had their own light meters; due to strobes dropping in prices; due to C41 coming out.</p>

<p>Here I got our first 35mm slide scanner in 1989. Many film pro folks then whined that it was due to the Walmart soccer mom buying Canon EOS with a zoom and 800 asa print films.</p>

<p>Business is always changing; folks that do not adapt will always blame that it is the new thing that is killing the profession,</p>

<p>Blaming it on digital is comical; it has been blamed too on every other new thing that has come along.</p>

<p>A late 1930's Pop Photo article blames it on "roll films; flash bulbs; exposure meters"</p>

<p>There are gobs of folks who just shoot images are are paid in cash; thus they do not fit in the model or survey.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I agree with Kelly. I think it is something that has always been a question. And professional photographers will always stand above and beyond the amateurs no matter what gear they might have.</p>

<p>I am an amateur, and have a 5D and a few pieces of L glass. Why am I not a professional?</p>

<p>I don't have the time. I am a full time teacher who coaches multiple sports in a year. In the summer I work construction. I am ecstatic to just have any time to pursue photography as a hobby.</p>

<p>Could I be a professional? Probably, if I decided that is what I wanted as my profession, I would invest time and money into the learning required, make connections, do the advertising etc etc. Oh wait... I guess I could be considered a semi-professional? Because I donated some photos that sold at a charity auction?</p>

<p>What really makes me laugh is a friend of mine all of a sudden says to me "I'm starting a photography buisness". She has no photography experience, asked me what an F-stop was, what ISO means, what lenses etc etc.</p>

<p>So I asked "really? how did you think of that Idea?". She responds with "I just bought a Nikon D90, and heard it takes good enough pictures to be a professional". All of this while I am seeing only... the D90 and kit lens. I just felt bad and kept my mouth shut.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>The camera does not make professional photos, the professional photographer does.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Professional photography has been "dying" since the day it was born. New technology continually causes changes in the nature of photography.<br /> I think the historical record shows the impact of first, dry-plates and then film on the kinds of professional photographers and the services they offered. I think that I am probably correct when I suggest that there are no <em>professional</em> daguerreotypists in business today. Wood engravers are no longer with us, either.</p>

<p>The professional (if competent - and not all are) will always produce better coverage than a family member with a "professional" camera. The problem is convincing the parents of the bride that it's worth the bucks <em>ahead</em> of time.</p>

<p>In areas where there is a sophisticated customer base, professional photographers will continue to occupy an important niche. The big corporation will continue to hire photographers, the small business may do so only after a disastrous experience with Ned in the mailing department and his "professional" camera.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there really less people earning a full time living from photography than ten/twenty years ago?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No... but there might be fewer.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I think the assertion is correct. It was a problem when I was doing commercial work 30 years ago, shooting Hasselblad and 4x5 cameras (when they were expensive) and competing against someone's kid shooting a Pentax 35mm camera. It's all a matter of differentiating yourself from others. Digital has its place, but I shoot a lot of MF and LF because my clients <em>can</em> see the difference.</p>

[harryo]

<p>"<strong>The camera does not make professional photos, the professional photographer does</strong>."<br>

That might be true, but it is the businessman that takes those professional photos and actually makes a business out of it. Many tallented photographers forget about the business parts. Many fail because of this.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>When I was young (60 years ago) there was only one studio in my town. The population remains the same, but four or five people now advertise as photographers, with two shooting full time. The others are experienced and capable. There must be many weddings or portraits covered only by amateurs. This means those who try to make a living in photography are struggling.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I wouldn't assume the population of a geographical area being the same as 60 years ago means the same proportion of people are seeking photographic services at the same frequency at the same per capita fee rates or that the use of amateurs means MUST mean all the pros are struggling. There are other factors that help determine the viability of the industry as well even if those things are so.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>Are there more people shooting these days? Most certainly! And that's a brilliant thing too! More points of view, new blood bringing in new ideas (even if they are, sometimes, poorly executed) and more and more people demanding more and more things can only serve to make the market more competitive, more sensitive and overall better.</p>

<p>Are more of these new entrants now advertising as "professional" photographers? I'm sure they do. Are they? Chances are they are not, but let me ask you this: when there was only one or two photographers in your town, was being restricted to only them, having to face only their - by nature - collaborative pricing and - equally common - passive approach to photography BETTER? Chances are it wasn't.</p>

<p>Yeah, the dilution of photography these days has led to some pretty substandard work and loads of competent professionals have lost their established markets and found themselves struggling, but that's Darwinism, isn't it? If you do not adapt then you WILL perish, skills or no skills. If you are a superbly gifted photographer and you do not have a website, if you do not offer your images on CDs and you cannot offer all those newly developed advances the OTHER, less gifted, photographers offer, chances are you WILL be making less money that they are! If you still rely on archiving your slides or your film manually, in boxes, then chances are you will NOT be able to respond as quickly to a stock photography query and you WILL lose the job to someone who archives using LR and has entered 100 keywords for each photo.</p>

<p>Adapt or perish. This should be more important to photographers today than the sunny 16 rule! I read it somewhere in this forum that "the business of photography has VERY little to do with photography" and truer words have never been said. Yeah, auntie Velma may take photos that are darker and less well lit than yours (the professional photographer) but chances are that if she's shooting with her D3 and shooting RAW, her final result WILL be better than yours if you're still shooting with your D80...Will it take her more time? Sure it will, but remember, she does it for fun and doesn't care...you on the other hand care because your time is money...</p>

<p>Adapt or perish and learn to differentiate from the newly arrive competition. Be better not only because you can take better images, but because your added value is more than whatever the competition is offering.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>chances are that if she's shooting with her D3 and shooting RAW, her final result WILL be better than yours if you're still shooting with your D80</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. If the photographer is any good, his/her pictures will be better that Auntie Velma's even if Aunti Velma has a D5 and the photographer is using a pinhole camera. Unless perhaps Auntie Velma just happens to be an ace wedding photographer on her day off, that is.</p>

 

[daniel flather]

<p>LOL @ Steve Smith.</p>