henkelphoto

Nick Ut, Reed Saxon, Mark Terrill, J. Scott Applewhite, Hyler Cooper, Bob Linder, Randy Leffingwell, Joe Kennedy, Mel Melcon, Anacleto Rapping, Eric Draper...need I go on? And yes, I know all these people personally

In the past 40 years, I've worked with hundreds of journalists and photojournalists who did both. "You hold the shutter button down and sell the pictures that make either subject look good or bad to their respective supporters and detractors. That way you get the most bang for your buck." This would not be the way a photojournalist looks at his/her job. It's more the way a public relations photographer would look at it. Not saying it's bad, just not the way a photojournalist looks at it.

It is very hard to stay objective sometimes. One of the silliest lines I've ever heard in a movie was in "Under Fire" starring Nick Nolte as a war photojournalist. At one point in the movie he says, "I don't take sides, I take pictures!". Of course, every time you trip the shutter you are consciously deciding to "take a side" by virtue of what you focus on. None the less, an honest photojournalist will admit his/her bias and try diligently to work around that. By the way, if you haven't seen "Under Fire", it's an excellent photoj movie. Nolte actually loaded film in his cameras for the takes as you can see the rewind knob turning when he shoots. Also, he carried real camera lenses around in his Domke bag, not just foam rubber to fill it out as most films/tv series used to do.

As a professional photojournalist, you need to be ready for all possibilities at the hearing. Wide angle, mid-range zoom and long telephoto zoom on the hearing itself. Tight facial shots, a view of the entire room, the committee conversing, the possibility of a disruption, any number of things. You'll most likely need to swap cards during breaks to get your photos in the internet asap (possibly a runner to take the cards out of the room to an editor). Multiple camera bodies so you don't have to lens swap during the hearings. If I was working this event, using Nikon equipment, here's what I would want to carry: 3 D5 bodies, a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 300 f4 (much smaller than the f2.8) and a fisheye (for the superwide shot--makes a nice panorama shot if you crop out the lens distortion at the top and bottom of the frame). I might substitute the 80-400 for the 70-200 and the 300. As for carrying extra memory cards for other photogs...well, if they are personal friends and use XQD cards I might have one to spare, but I figure I'd need at least 8-10 cards for myself (2 card slots on each camera plus a couple extra for safety.)

Gary, what do you think about using the 200-500 from the end zone?

I see your point. And I've known some people who've done just this in the past. Pete Leabo was an Associated Press photographer and he and others developed the Leaf system. The Leaf system was a portable (well, it weighed about 15 pounds!) scanner which allowed the photographer to scan in negatives and then transmit them to a distribution point, in our case, the AP. It was wildly successful before digital cameras became the norm. Then there was Jim Domke, who was tired of using camera bags that just weren't designed for working photojournalists. Of course, his bags are still among the top sellerso of shoulder bags to pj folks. But the thing is this, while both of these people led very successful business ventures, they both left the field of photography to do it. The things you mention require software design, a service to dispatch photographers, and engineering--none of them involves that actual taking of photos. If people could do the things you mention, and I believer they are very good ideas, they could make a very good business out of them, but they wouldn't be out taking photos, they'd be too busy running their new companies. Actually, I don't think the dispatch idea would work too well, there are already many people taking photos on their cell phones and sending them to news outlets, and while the photos aren't all that great, the news organizations are happy to use them because they are free and immediate--as we used to say..F8 and be there, beats perfect exposures every time.

Phil, I think we're jousting at windmills. Yes, I do think that if you want to do photography, there is a very low barrier for entry--however, that entry entails working for next to nothing for most people. Also I do believe that it is hard to come up with a sustainable business model because of the existing pool of photographers and a market which is much, much smaller than it was even 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 25 years ago. Can you be the one of 100 who makes it? The possibility is always there. Is it more likely that you will end up on the cutting room floor after leaving your current job, blowing through your savings in a few months and ending up a stressed-out individual going back to whatever you were doing before? Also possible. If you have the commitment to "make your bones" and don't have any responsibilities that preclude you from trying--go ahead give it a whirl. And never have I said it's impossible to make a living in photography--in fact if you read my original post, I said that the best way to make it is to go into sports photography or weddings. I know you'll want to get the last word in, but believe me, I sincerely wish to see the OP succeed. I hope he can. I am reticent to say--"Yeah, it's no problem, go for it."

I see your point, but that market is a very small portion of the overall group of people who want photos. Are there businesses and individuals who value good work? Absolutely. Is that market being served by the existing pool of professional photographers? Most likely, making it very hard for the OP to break into the market. Can it happen? Sure. Does it happen often? No. As for me, I've worked as a professional portrait photographer, wedding photographer, photojournalist and photo editor for the past 40 years. I've worked for a local portrait studio, the Las Vegas Review-Journa, the Los Angeles Times, Gannett News Corp, and The Associated Press. I have seen the field of professional photography drop like a rock for the past 10-15 years as digital cameras and the internet have become the norm for taking and displaying photos. I can't even count the number of people whom I've known who have left the field either by choice (because their business dwindled) or by layoffs. I guess my bottom line is: Give it a shot if you want, but don't give up your day job, even if you are the best of the best.

I don't know if you are referring to my post, but here's the thing. It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what the potential client thinks. And the vast majority of those people think that their DSLR is just fine and they don't want to pay for photos. Especially when all and I mean all (when was the last time the normal person wanted a print of anything?) of those guys just want a photo sized 3x4 so they can post it on the web. Photojournalism--"citizen journalists" with cell phones are giving photos to news organizations for free. Portraits--"Uncle Bob has a brand new Canon T3i-why would we want to buy photos when he'll shoot them for free and we can post to the internet in minutes", Concerts--"Hey dude, I see you want to listen to a concert for free and will give us photos for free--that's cool", Business photos--"Jim in advertising has a great new Nikon D3500--he'll do all the photos for the annual report and portraits of all our execs and we don't have to pay him any extra because he already works for us", Real Estate--the realtors are doing the photos with the exception of the truly high end market. About the only place where people still demand and expect pro quality photos is sports team photos--only because they want those great action shots a true pro can deliver, and weddings, and for weddings you really need to be able to do video in addition to stills.

With tongue in cheek I'll tell you the best way to make money with photography, either write a book on "how to make money with your camera" or just sell all your equipment and walk away. Kind of like the old saying that the two best days in a boat owner's life is when they buy the boat and when they sell it. Seriously, with the prevalence of dslrs and cell phones with excellent cameras, it's really, really hard to make money with your camera. Best options are either sports team photography or weddings. Neither of which is the most fun or fulfilling.

you might give these people a call and see if they can help you out. Midwest Camera Repair, Inc - Customer Service

It's very hard to make a living as a landscape/nature photographer. You probably could count on both hands the number of people in the U.S. making a living doing only this. Most photographers who are successful and make a good living solely as photographers shoot people (something which is lacking in your two portfolios you've shown here). Photographing people would be included in fields such as: sports, photojournalism, weddings, corporate and to some extent music (although most music photos end up being shot by friends for next to nothing). I think you have some beautiful photos, but you need to show some people photos if you expect to be able to make a living at photography. Sometimes it's better to keep a fun hobby as just that, a fun hobby.

Back in the day, if I had rolled the film back into the canister, I would just peal it open with my fingers, but I was young and strong then :) Be aware if the air is super dry and cold, pulling the film out of the canister through the felt can lead to static electric sparks which will show up on your film. That's why we always used to use the hand rewind knobs rather than the motor drive rewind on our Canon F1s and Nikon F3s in cold weather.

There are a number of "retouching" software programs, I use one called Portrait Pro. Perhaps the 19-year old is using one also. Your best bet for getting better as a portrait or fashion photographer is to find a photographer who you admire and see if you can apprentice for him/her.

Going back to the OP's original question. I would take a roll of unexposed film to the processor and have him develop it to see if the film is bad. Cost you a little money, but not that much for just processing not printing.

Did you look at photographers in your area? If not, make some calls pretending to be a client and find out what the locals are charging. There is a vast difference in what photographers in the big cities and coastal areas charge and smaller towns and the center of the county.

I was a photojournalist for around 40 years (I've been retired for a couple of years now). While most of the photos I shot were the property of the companies I worked for, many are not. I've left instructions to donate the photos which I have ownership rights to the appropriate colleges in the areas where I shot the photos. For instance, ones I've shot here in Nevada go to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in Los Angeles, UCLA, in Missouri, to Missouri State University. As for the equipment, I only have one Leica which is worth something. The rest of the bunch of cameras I own aren't worth a plugged nickel anymore so I really don't care where they go. What's important is to make sure that the images go to somewhere which will archive them (as in making physical copies). It's especially important now that we, as a group, don't make prints much. Digital images only live as long as the devices to read them are available. So what's going to happen in 100 years when your great-great-grandson sees a flash drive with images on it in the attic? It can be the most important event of the 21st century, but he won't be able to download the images, assuming they haven't deteriorated beyond saving. Years ago, I was working with Missouri State on compiling personal photos of people who lived in the Ozarks for generations. There were photos available in those albums that can't be found except in private collections. Photos about what life was like 60, 80, 100 years ago. Back then, we copied the prints and made negatives and our own prints and placed them in archival containers. Now, it's important to get to those photos before the relatives "keep the ones they like and delete the rest".

Okay, so here's a radical idea, but something I find myself toying with more and more as I get older (and maybe wiser). Ever think of just getting a 35mm (50mm ff) prime and using it as your only lens? As I get older, I want to blend in more and the less camera I have, the more I blend in. I find it easier to talk to people on the street and end up taking their photos if I don't have a honking big lens on the camera. Plus, I find I really enjoy my traveling more with my minimalist approach. I have a friend who went on a two week trip to Rome one year. I asked her about the photos, and she said she had not taken one photo (and bear in mind this woman was a photo editor for the Associated Press). When I asked her what about all the sights she saw, she pointed to her head and said, "It's all up here." Now I'm not advocating that you not take a camera with you, but most likely, the chance that anyone will like your photos as much as you yourself do is not very high. And you will have all the memories of the trip stored in your head. So, step back, put the camera down once in a while and just take in the view with your own eyes with nothing in front of them! Use your feet as a zoom lens. Move back or forward as needed. And if you just can't get the shot with the lens you have on the camera, put it down and just enjoy the view.

In my opinion, what's made it difficult for the commercial photographer is not the digital cameras, but the Internet. People don't get many prints made anymore and that's where the commercial photographer made his "gravy" money. Now, if you want to show off the grandchildren to your friends, you post a 400x600 dpi photo on the internet and everything's good. No more 16x20 prints at $200 each. And the same goes for the business photographer. Most companies now post their annual reports on their websites. Again, they just want small photos. I recently turned down a job that involved 19 business portraits. I quoted them a price that included me bringing in my lighting equipment to their business, setting up a backdrop, doing the photos and then cleaning up everyone's faces in the computer (using Portrait Pro) and then delivering the photos to them on a cd and also on Dropbox. I quoted $100 each. They said no. I said, okay, I'll do it for $75 each. They still said no. When I asked them what they were willing to pay, they said $25 each. I said no. They ended up using someone's cousin or nephew or something, basically a guy with a camera. Does the difference show in their report? Probably not at a 175x250 dpi size. I don't do weddings so I don't know if the same thing is happening, but I suspect it is. So in a sense, the digital age is the cause of the slow death of commercial photography (again my opinion), but mostly due to the Internet, not the cameras.

Impossible to say with the information you've given. What is the company's budget for the project? How big is the company? Are the photos going in an annual report or being used in an advertising campaign? Are you being given travel expense? Are the locations close to each other? Are you providing incidentals? Do each of the photos need to be decidedly different? How much time are you being given for each shoot? Can you reasonably make it to each shoot with only 30-45 minutes between shoots or do you need an assistant to set up the shots before you get there? Are you giving up all rights? Personally, I don't think I would want to do 14 photo shoots a day with traveling between them included. Even at only 30 minutes per shoot, you're looking at a 14-18 hour day. Lots to think about. If I had to give a number based on my shooting and the virtually impossible schedule to make, I'd probably say $7,500 to 10,000.

If the only reason you would spring $800-1000 for a new phone is to get a better camera, a good point-n-shoot will be a more economical way to go, and considering the cost of going to Disney parks nowadays, that may be a consideration.

Being a recently retired photojournalist with 40 years in the business, I think the cartoon is pretty funny. Ed--as for the big floppy bags, most photojournalists who are still working in the US don't use bags much anymore but have switched to belts or vests. Too many shoulder problems! But you're right about the Canon or Nikon, although some are now transitioning to mirrorless to save on weight.

Thanks Fred!

Hi guys! I'm in the midst of planning a first ever trip to Israel. Can anyone give me hints on what not to photograph? I understand the military and orthodox Jews don't want to be photographed but is there any other taboo areas to look out for? Thanks!

With the advent of micro-stock, I really don't think stock photography is viable unless 1) you are only interested in a check amounting to less than $100 each quarter, or 2) you have massive amounts of photos to dump onto a stock agency (think 10,000-1 million photos)