Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct

[mikew09]

As someone close to retirement and planning to make some pocket money as a part time photog moving into retirement - it has been in the back of my mind the question of is there still a role for a pro photographer. Everyone has a camera at hand these days and albeit the web, FB, instagram, snapchat and the like are filled with phone photos I still see a future in photography as an income earner (Well IMHO anyways).

In the search for the holy grail with the answer I came across a session by Tony Northrup on this very subject. An interesting session to watch and although it appears, statistically to show a decline in some genre of photography, there is area's of photography that still hold up hope.

Aaron Nace of PHLearn is of the opinion that to survive in todays world you must develop serious editing skills and apply them to manipulate the images to that of the appetite of the market - on this I strongly agree. So then I ask myself, you do not have artistic skills so how do you fit the mold. In another recorded session by a photog who I cannot remember was this very topic also and it is of his believe that the art of photography and editing can be learned without the basis of artistic skills as photography within itself is a leaned skill and not gifted. I am on the fence with this one and will let you know in about 6 yrs time if this is the case :-)

For those interested - here is the link to Tony's session on his assessment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQQDysiedRA

SO - What is the thoughts among the AP group of photographers - I have followed a couple of journeys of some photogs who started on AP as enthusiasts and moved on to career photogs. I am sure there are others on here working as a FT photog that see the real direction the photographer market is taking.

All comments on this subject are most welcome :-)

[ricktas]

I think globalisation has made the role of the professional photographer change. Go back 20 years and most department stores had a marketing department that did their catalogues, they often had a small studio, local models and did their own catalogue shoots. Now they buy in the clothes from China, India etc and the catalogue shots come with them.

Car yards would employ photographers to shoot the glossy brochures, now the manufacturer supplies it *overseas model shown.

However, there are some photos that cannot be shot overseas. Weddings, people, etc. You have to be on the ground, in front of the client to take their photo. They cannot contract it out to someone overseas. So there is a market for professional photographers, you just have to know what it is.

Your own post also hints at the issues facing professional photographers. You hope to make some pocket money as you move into retirement. So you decide to start shooting weddings. There are only so many weddings in Australia each year and in fact the number of weddings annually has been declining each year. Yet, there are a lot more photographers, who think they can make some pocket money, shooting these ever decreasing number of weddings. Perhaps if gay marriage had been successfully dealt with by our politicians, the wedding market would once again have boomed. If nothing else, it would have well and truly boosted that economy sector.

So, in summary, my thoughts are that professional photography is still a great career.. for some. Though they have to fight for the limited $'s with all the semi-professionals out there, in a tighter and smaller marketplace.

[ameerat42]

Ahh, the march of time takes its toll:( - First, the bird; then the dance; now the ProTogs?!!

The Dodo. - Where is it now?

The Go-go. (Hey, remember the 60s? - Yeah? Well you weren't there!)

And now.... for the man (usually) of extinction... Enter EXIT the...
Go-Pro :eek::confused013

[Plays With Light]

I think it's hard to impossible to make a living from say Landscape or Macro imagery alone. You would need to be doing portraiture and maybe weddings or sports (if you can get a press card) to get the equivalent of a full-time wage from it.

[mikew09]

Yea, I hear you Rick.

My comments maybe lack some clarity :-) Pocket money was probably a bad choice of words. In reality I need a retirement job to ensure my super lasts me and having worked in IT for the last 24 yrs, the only other skill I have is photography and close to turning 60 once I leave my current role there is no IT opportunities at my age "We are called the un-employable" :-(. So my plan is to attempt to move into photography, its something I love and not wanting to make a million my goal would be to earn a top up living salary to my pension.
Not sure weddings would be the top pick for myself and was more planning maybe a small home studio and on site portrait shoots including equine photography (equine portrait) that I already do a small amount of.

I certainly do not want to be one of these $600 for the whole wedding photographers either being it impacts the pro's out there trying to make a living. My idea is to try and find the gap between the bottom of the market and the top of the market with an aim to earn 20-30K a yr to keep my life comfortable in retirement and allow me to maintain my gear.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL - from what I can tell there is a real market growing for photographers offering arial photography with the likes of quads. I.E. Realestate rural property overviews, high look down group wedding shots etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree Alex,
I have a colleague whose partner started out doing family photos at home when their first bud was born. Then friends admiring her photos asked to have theirs done and then she was taking bookings on weekends to do paid work. To cut a long story short she is now working full time as a child, baby photog and making better money. Her comments are there is a real gap in the market to be filled (speaking Qld) as she is constantly booked out 3 - 6 months in advance, or at least that was the case 12 - 18 months ago.

Asking around it is not un-common to have to book well in advance for the baby bump photo's, baby photos and the like. She does nice photos, certainly shots a client would be happy with but nor are teh photo blow away in comparison to the many other photogs in this space.

So, this all sounds bright and encouraging, however, it is an income earner like any other job and probably still earning the average wage at the end of the day. I expect there is many more hrs put in per week than the average job though.

Training, photog walks etc also seem to be a big market but I struggle to see that being sustainable and is very much driven by the economic climate I think. Trey Ratcliff is a good example of a success story and I have followed his career for yrs, he is probably one of the most diversified photography into all areas of photography.

I struggle with the question of this post when there are still many success stories but so many statements to the negative of a photography career.

[Glenda]

I guess if you are good enough at the genre you choose and give the clients what they want you will be successful. I have a few friends who do paid work, one full time the other two only part time. The full time one used to do lots of weddings, proms etc but nowadays his main work is corporate. As he said every stay at home Mum with a DSLR gets into wedding/baby photography nowadays. One of them gets really good money for real estate photography and does some weddings, but the one who gets the biggest bucks does some amazing creative composites and does book covers. She takes all the photographs - which look quite ordinary on their own but what she creates out of them is amazing.

I just finished reading a book The Shot by Gary Ramage who is a photojournalist based in Canberra. He also does lots of conflict photography, going where the wars are and takes some very powerful images /www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTfDexnqtwk. He was a soldier and got into photography sort of by accident but has certainly become a big success. He's employed by News Ltd and said in the book that nowadays papers are employing less and less photographers putting lots of pressure on the remaining ones who need to get all over the place to get 'the shot'.

[mikew09]

Thanx Glenda, that is interesting. According to Tony Northrup's accessment and he has had a varied career. Photojournalism is becoming one of the most dangerous roles as like you say, most the work in in heavy conflict scenerio's.
I remember about 6 yrs ago I followed a protest tht was getting a bit out of hand in Brisbane and there were two photographers there working it hard - watching one of them I noticed as soon as it appeared he had what he wanted he was uploading them to some device and I assume was already on their way to a news corp.

I think I have already mentioned this but Aaron Nace of PHLearn, pretty much said that "if you dont learn and adapt to composite photo editing you wont survive" or someting like that.

You raised one good point - The photographer needs to be good at his work and be able to deliver to the clients needs - I suspect there are maybe hundreds of photogs doing it hard but is it due to not quite being up to speed for the genre they work too.
I know we have all seen professionally done photo's that are for want of a better work "ordinary" maybe the time for them is coming to an end.

[farmmax]

I suspect it is no different to most other jobs. Whether you succeed will depend more on your business and people skills, than your photography skills.

I also think post processing skills are essential, unless you plan making enough money to pay someone to do it for you :) It is PP skills which will help set your images apart. Whilst every mum seems to have a dslr now, how many of them have to editing skills to take their photos one step further? They all know how to do the instagram one click filters, but if they can do that, someone else can find it and also do it. You are already playing with editing skills which are taking you down a path that people may not be able to reproduce. That is what you want. If they want their photos to look like yours, they'll have to come and get them from you.

So many photographers have lost their jobs at the newspapers. I know several this has happened to. The problem is, many people love giving their photos to the papers for free. Why would a paper pay a photographer when they have offers of free photos daily? I do not offer the media any photos for free. I don't want to be responsible for putting a photographer out of work :(

[mikew09]

Good comments farmmax. Beleive it or not there used to be a living as an equine photographer shooting key events for the large equine community here in Australia. There is still some engagements like the Qld Royal (EKKA), Syd Royal etc but a couple of big gigs hardly pay the bills. Its the same story, someone has a DSLR and offers to take photos for resale offering to attend the event at no charge - rarely do they deliver but hey, they got expensive gear so they must be great photos right?.
About 2 yrs ago I was offered a gig shooting for one of the horse associations for thier main events and I agreed to a fair payment for each day to cover my costs and then photos at a price aligned with the normal cost base.

The reason I was engaged was due to a previous shoot and the quality of the photos taken. I have a strong horse background and take care to try and capture the right gait of the horse, movement and shots that reflect the activity the horse is competing in and the like. There was a commitee meeting about a week before the Championships shoot and the commitee was voting on approval to pay for the engagement. Some one put forward, why are we paying for a photographer, my friend has a really good camera and will do it for free and just the sale of photos - that was that. The shoot at the event didnt go well and there was a number of complaints why I had not been engaged. This attitude has done a lot of damage to the equine photographers trying to make a living and two I know of have since left that genre as thier primary genre and moved onto some thing else, one out of photography.

I have said for a few yrs now that most people dont know what a quality profession photo is until they see one :-) For some scenarios I think this is due to an emotionally attachment to the subject. I see this often in the horse industry when someone loves a photo of their horse even when the photo is a tad blurred etc. I think you can take advantage of emotional attachment when producing a beautifully taken and edited photo of which fits into what I hope to do moving into retirement - taking advantage is not great wording, but for me there is great pleasure in taking a photo of a subject someone or a group of people are emotionally close to and making it the best the photo I can deliver and hopefully above the expectation of the buyer - capturing the character of the subject and such. No doubt this is what many successful photogs do but delivering is the talent of the photographer. Fair to say I am still learning towards that goal.

Hmm, just read back and realised I am ranting a bit :-) - thanx for contributing to the thread farmmax

[Steve Axford]

It is still possible to make money from photography, as a retirement hobby, but I don't think there is any secret formula too it. I retired and several friends suggested that I could make money from photography. I thought about it and decided that I would hate taking weddings or product shots or kids riding BMX bikes, so maybe I wouldn't bother. Instead I'd take photos of what I really liked and just share them on the internet. Then various people in the US, Europe, China and finally Australia started to get enthralled by my fungi photos. It has been truly amazing as the interest hasn't waned and if anything has increased year by year. I do almost no marketing, although I do run a facebook page, and I would say that my photographic skills exceed my business skills by quite a long way (which gives you some idea of my business skills).
I've got no idea how you would go about planning something like this as it was completely unplanned, but that's the story of my life. For me it comes down to doing what I am really passionate about and the rest will follow, and if it doesn't? To hell with it, just do it anyway.

[mikew09]

That is an inspirational story Steve. Just spent some time on your site and the fungi shots etc are truly amazing mate. I remember reading some time ago (and am pretty certain it was on AP) that a photo of a fungi had been taken but the fungi had not yet been identified etc - quite a find I imagine - was that you Steve?

Great work and a great story too - Very few of us get to do what we love and get paid for it. Retirement is a bit of a scary place to be heading and I appreciate you sharing your story, very interesting Steve.

[Steve Axford]

Unnamed mushrooms are really quite common, Mike. It is rare to find an unnamed animal or even a tree, but there are lots of unnamed fungi that are. The problem is finding someone who is prepared to do all the work to name them, so most are just refered to as part of a section or subsection.
Retirement can be a bit scary. How do you fill your time? Photography is a good option and it is great if you can get paid a bit for it too. My suggestion is to do what you really like as you may not get paid very much for it. That way you don't mind if you get paid very little, or maybe nothing, for what took you 100s of hours of effort. I take photos because I love to take them, not because I can see a sale coming along. If you have been a pro photographer then you can ease yourself into retirement, but I don't think that most people can create a marketing based paying hobby for retirement, unless their hobby is marketing. You mention the horses. I'd stick to that since you probably enjoy taking the photos anyway and if you sell them then that is a bonus or if they give you expense paid trips to horse shows.. I have a good technique for working out what to charge. I ask the person who is buying what they would normally pay or what they expect to pay. That can give you a starting point for negotiaton. Some say nothing and won't budge, then you have to decide if you will support them for nothing. Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes you get a pleasant surprise when they tell you how much. Don't ask the internet to tell you what is a reasonable price. They don't know and they often have other motives and may be happy to see you not do the work. I had a friend who really liked taking wedding photos (strange but true). He would take friends weddings because he enjoyed doing it. Then more and more friends and friends of friends started asking him to take their weddings. He just couldn't do them all, so he stared charging in an attempt to reduce the number of requests. Now he's given up his day job because the wedding thing has become full time. I do a similar thing, just not weddings. I sometimes have to remind myself that I am doing this because I like doing it and I will refuse to do those things that are not fun, even if they pay well. I also do many things that pay nothing, because I support the outcome. I don't agree with the idea that you have to get paid for all the work you do. I you hate your work, then fair enough, but if you would do it anyway ...

[piczzilla]

Hi Mike, I agree there are way too many photographers and even more photography enthusiasts. I (most humbly) think it's easier to earn money by selling things that will help photographers than selling the photos themselves. E.g. in the old days, when you post a good photo, people may be interested in purchasing the photo, but these days, when you post a good photo, a lot of people may be more interested in knowing how to produce that photo instead of purchasing it.

I guess what I'm suggesting is selling things like, photoshop actions, lightroom presets, photo stocks for manipulation/stitching, online tutorials/workshops, etc, and use your photos/images as product advertisements. In fact, personally I've seen more people earning money that way than selling their images.

I hope it goes well for you.

[mikew09]

Thanx Steve, that's a great insight - really appreciate your comment mate.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats is a very good point piczzilla - I think I did comment that training appears to be a big part of a lot of successful photographers these days but you have rithgly highlighted this. Jason Lanier, Aaron Nace, David Hoey, Gary Fong, Trey Ratcliff, Serge Ramelli, Tony Northrup and the likes of Adoramam just to name a few immediately off the top of my head. All offer those services in additional to their base photographer services.
Trey Ratcliff has taken it to another level and offers training for Quad copters as he beleives it is a big part of a photographers tool box these days.

I am an ex-trainer, Military and then IT along with IT consulting for a number of yrs. I have in the past given thought to were training may fit in a photography for me as I loved to train - I am a bit of a talker :-).

[Glenda]

.... I have a strong horse background and take care to try and capture the right gait of the horse, movement and shots that reflect the activity the horse is competing in and the like...
And that's the secret - although you obviously have to get it past the tight fisted committee members as well.:D

I went to a PSQ convention in Yeppoon last year and one of the guest speakers was a young lady who shot rodeos/campdrafts etc professionally. It was really interesting hearing her say what sort of shots the riders were looking for. I've never been a rodeo fan but found I really enjoy shooting them and of course the shots I really like are when they get bucked - apparently that would never sell as they want shots which show them totally in control, which is understandable.

[MissionMan]

I have no doubt that professional photographers could be replaced by intelligent camera at some point and I think it's a risk we need to be aware of. With driverless cars, it won't be long (20 years max) before a camera that will identify the best possible angles, the best framing, the best filters and tell a complete novice where to move to get the best photo. It will probably use a database of the top photos for given scenarios.

I think niches will exist for now, but I think photography is a dying breed long term.

[ameerat42]

I have no doubt that professional photographers could be replaced by intelligent camera at some point and I think it's a risk we need to be aware of. With driverless cars, it won't be long (20 years max) before a camera that will identify the best possible angles, the best framing, the best filters and tell a complete novice where to move to get the best photo. It will probably use a database of the top photos for given scenarios.

I think niches will exist for now, but I think photography is a dying breed long term.

And with the extinct pro togs - and possibly at this rate, much of humanity - we will need races of trained
animal species to appreciate the output of such devices. Make the cameras self-replicating and add the
capacity for improvement... Hmm! Homo cameratus (cross between camera and apparatus:confused013)

[Steve Axford]

I have no doubt that professional photographers could be replaced by intelligent camera at some point and I think it's a risk we need to be aware of. With driverless cars, it won't be long (20 years max) before a camera that will identify the best possible angles, the best framing, the best filters and tell a complete novice where to move to get the best photo. It will probably use a database of the top photos for given scenarios.

I think niches will exist for now, but I think photography is a dying breed long term.

I presume that was just intended to garner a response. Well, here's one. That is very, very silly.

[MissionMan]

I presume that was just intended to garner a response. Well, here's one. That is very, very silly.

I personally think you're underestimating technology and how quickly the progression of technology will impact things. When you consider how quickly a phone manufacturer can die in the market (at the peak of the Nokia invasion, if someone told you in 5 years time that Apple and Samsung would be the biggest phone manufacturers, people would have called it out as bull), I think we can only assume that cameras will undergo similar changes. We have smile detection, eye detection, pre-focus and cameras taking photos before and after you take the photo to make sure that you get the perfect photo. They already have scene recognition to identify landscape, portrait, night etc. That's just the start. How long do you think it will be before a camera has the technology capability to look at a scene, identify the best possible crop, and tell the user the angle is wrong based on rules like thirds, parallel lines etc? 5 years is a long time in technology, 20 years is a lifetime. If someone isn't already working on it, they will be soon.

[ameerat42]

But, Steve. Where, then, do you put FB, Twitter, and other other recent social plagues?

MM's prognosis is as valid as any. I think Asimov was only partly right. It will be "We, Robots":eek:

[Steve Axford]

I personally think you're underestimating technology and how quickly the progression of technology will impact things. When you consider how quickly a phone manufacturer can die in the market (at the peak of the Nokia invasion, if someone told you in 5 years time that Apple and Samsung would be the biggest phone manufacturers, people would have called it out as bull), I think we can only assume that cameras will undergo similar changes. We have smile detection, eye detection, pre-focus and cameras taking photos before and after you take the photo to make sure that you get the perfect photo. They already have scene recognition to identify landscape, portrait, night etc. That's just the start. How long do you think it will be before a camera has the technology capability to look at a scene, identify the best possible crop, and tell the user the angle is wrong based on rules like thirds, parallel lines etc? 5 years is a long time in technology, 20 years is a lifetime. If someone isn't already working on it, they will be soon.

This may all happen for the average person's photographs, but the very best? I doubt that.
I worked with high end computers for most of my working life. I do understand technology and I use it, but what you imply is a human brain in a computer. When that happens, we will no longer be required. That will not happen in 5 or 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -


But, Steve. Where, then, do you put FB, Twitter, and other other recent social plagues?

MM's prognosis is as valid as any. I think Asimov was only partly right. It will be "We, Robots":eek:

Whats FB got to do with it? And why do you think it's a social plague?

[ameerat42]

Well, first it was the (ancient) Egyptians, and now it's our turn:D

[Steve Axford]

Well, first it was the (ancient) Egyptians, and now it's our turn:D

You will have to explain that.
By the way, I am still waiting for your promised apology. It seems that here you are supporting the negative view and that seems to be ok.

[MissionMan]

This may all happen for the average person's photographs, but the very best? I doubt that.
I worked with high end computers for most of my working life. I do understand technology and I use it, but what you imply is a human brain in a computer. When that happens, we will no longer be required. That will not happen in 5 or 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -



Whats FB got to do with it? And why do you think it's a social plague?

Who hires the best. People already hire amateurs for weddings so what makes you think they would hire the best if technology allowed them to get most of what they want.

Computers already have incredibly brainpower. They can beat people in chess and they've probably already reached a point of beating the top chess masters in the world. What makes you think they couldn't beat 99.99999% of photographers in 20 years time? They can do facial recognition faster than a human can do it. The thing with photographs is they are similar so the ability of a computer to look at a scene, identify 1000 variations of the similar photos to find the top 10 options of what it considers best practice from a photographic perspective would not be that hard now, never mind in 20 years time. It could do hundreds if not thousands of calculations in the time it takes you to decide what shutter speed to use.

[Steve Axford]

Who hires the best. People already hire amateurs for weddings so what makes you think they would hire the best if technology allowed them to get most of what they want.

Computers already have incredibly brainpower. They can beat people in chess and they've probably already reached a point of beating the top chess masters in the world. What makes you think they couldn't beat 99.99999% of photographers in 20 years time? They can do facial recognition faster than a human can do it. The thing with photographs is they are similar so the ability of a computer to look at a scene, identify 1000 variations of the similar photos to find the top 10 options of what it considers best practice from a photographic perspective would not be that hard now, never mind in 20 years time. It could do hundreds if not thousands of calculations in the time it takes you to decide what shutter speed to use.

I think you are confusing wedding photographers with the best photographers, but since you mention them, let's look at wedding photos. Good wedding photos rely on the photographers interaction with the wedding party as much as it does technically good photography. Are you suggesting that a smartphone will interact with humans as well as a human? When they happens, who needs a spouse. Just marry your smartphone.

Computers have been able to beat the best chess players for 20 years already, but chess involves no judgement as to beauty. It is just numbers. Try to define the rule of thirds so it applies to any photograph. And then remember that a really good photographer will be able to look at the result and decide if it works or not. How is a computer going to do that? How do you define how the Mona Lisa works? People have been trying ever since it was painted.

[MissionMan]

I think you are confusing wedding photographers with the best photographers, but since you mention them, let's look at wedding photos. Good wedding photos rely on the photographers interaction with the wedding party as much as it does technically good photography. Are you suggesting that a smartphone will interact with humans as well as a human? When they happens, who needs a spouse. Just marry your smartphone.

Computers have been able to beat the best chess players for 20 years already, but chess involves no judgement as to beauty. It is just numbers. Try to define the rule of thirds so it applies to any photograph. And then remember that a really good photographer will be able to look at the result and decide if it works or not. How is a computer going to do that? How do you define how the Mona Lisa works? People have been trying ever since it was painted.

Nope, I'm using that as an example. I'm suggesting a computer will be able to tell you what focal length is correct to achieve the right crop, whether the angle is wrong, whether you need to move or the angle needs to change, what aperture would be best and in 20 years it would be able to do that in a second or less, or far less time than it would take for a human to evaluate the same situation because a human doesn't have the capacity to compare the current frame to thousands (or potentially millions) of stock award winning photos. It would be able to produce the best photos by simple replicating what it takes to get the best photos and comparing a given situation to it's stock library of the best photos. And that excludes the idea that AI will occur, because if and when that occurs, computers will have the capacity to learn faster than a person can and that would mean that they could eclipse even the best photographers. So for a given situation, it may not produce something unique but it could produce something brilliant.

And by that stage, you could probably even get a robot of sorts to direct the people so you may not even need someone to tell you where to stand and how to stand. It would be able to understand in an instant whether everyone in the photo was sharp or whether there was movement by one person in a group shot. It could be able to take a photo far quicker and potentially avoid missing a photo because it wasn't quick enough with the shutter.

So yes, I am saying that in 20 years, we could be replaceable.

[ameerat42]

Promised apology? [What P Hanson often asks.]

[Steve Axford]

Nope, I'm using that as an example. I'm suggesting a computer will be able to tell you what focal length is correct to achieve the right crop, whether the angle is wrong, whether you need to move or the angle needs to change, what aperture would be best and in 20 years it would be able to do that in a second or less, or far less time than it would take for a human to evaluate the same situation because a human doesn't have the capacity to compare the current frame to thousands (or potentially millions) of stock award winning photos. It would be able to produce the best photos by simple replicating what it takes to get the best photos and comparing a given situation to it's stock library of the best photos. And that excludes the idea that AI will occur, because if and when that occurs, computers will have the capacity to learn faster than a person can and that would mean that they could eclipse even the best photographers. So for a given situation, it may not produce something unique but it could produce something brilliant.

And by that stage, you could probably even get a robot of sorts to direct the people so you may not even need someone to tell you where to stand and how to stand. It would be able to understand in an instant whether everyone in the photo was sharp or whether there was movement by one person in a group shot. It could be able to take a photo far quicker and potentially avoid missing a photo because it wasn't quick enough with the shutter.

So yes, I am saying that in 20 years, we could be replaceable.

I think you miss the point that photography is a communication. It is a performance. The story really does mean something and computers don't write stories.
If you treat your photography as a purely mechanical thing where a computer could do it for you, then I suspect that you well never be a good photographer. I would love for the automatic aspects of a camera to improve. That way I could just focus on on the human aspects, but I suspect that even in 5 or 20 years time that there will still be technical things that we have to do. I don't work out the best settings on a camera because I love doing that bit. I do it because I have to. I usually spend far more time thinking about and finding the best time and place for the photograph I want, than I do working out the technicalities of the camera or other equipment. As soon as one thing becomes automatic then the photographers (or any other tool user) will move on to more complex things. We discover and then do new things. Computers don't. They just do what they were programmed to do. To do totally new things requires a computer that can rewire itself to become something new - like us. Perhaps biological computers will eventually be made, but to think that will happen in the next 20 years is just dreaming. We are far more complex than any of our electronic computers.
I can see that one day a computer loaded with a stock library of "good" photos being able to take endless copies of them. That may improve the quality of the average holiday snap, but will hardy replace even the good wedding photographer.

- - - Updated - - -


Promised apology? [What P Hanson often asks.]

Is that a comparison?

[ameerat42]

To explain, she often says "Please explain."
Now, if you read any sort of slight in that post (#27), please note that there isn't one/never has been one/never will be one.
I also can disagree with views. But again, what apology did I promise? (Aside: I never promise anything, but to proceed...)
Was it somewhere in this thread?

[Steve Axford]

To explain, she often says "Please explain."
Now, if you read any sort of slight in that post (#27), please note that there isn't one/never has been one/never will be one.
I also can disagree with views. But again, what apology did I promise? (Aside: I never promise anything, but to proceed...)
Was it somewhere in this thread?

You wrote this in the thread on Why post on AP?

"I'm way past posting pictures here because I get the response I want elsewhere."
(Apologies for the words used.)
As such - and this is how it seems to me - it rather serves to put you in an "elitist" position.

If I am wrong, please say so, and I will furnish due apologies.

[ameerat42]

I will go and look at that thread. So far, I do not see your point.
I will continue any reply there.

[William W]

. . . My comments maybe lack some clarity :-) Pocket money was probably a bad choice of words. In reality I need a retirement job to ensure my super lasts me.

If that is a serious statement then I advise you look at the realities of Photography (per se) as a business. I think it will be a struggle to start from scratch and make a business of 'photography' as the means of a consistent and modestly reliable income.

***


having worked in IT for the last 24 yrs, the only other skill I have is photography

If your statement about a 'retirement job' is serious: then even more seriously is that I suggest that you re-consider this statement about your skill-set.

I was fortunate enough to be involved in a nation-wide retraining program involving cut-over from Analog to Digital News-media Workflow. One notable outcome was middle aged men (as a statistic) did not survive the retraining and were culled from the workforce: they clung onto what was their perception of their skill sets predicated upon what were the primary skills that they USED on a day to day basis – and they neither acknowledged nor accessed their total skill set which they had accumulated throughout a lifetime of work and life experiences.

I very much doubt that your only skill, other than IT, is photography.

***


close to turning 60 once I leave my current role there is no IT opportunities at my age "We are called the un-employable"

Indeed. I am 62 and I couldn’t give one stuff what I am ‘called’ . . .

***


So my plan is to attempt to move into photography, its something I love and not wanting to make a million my goal would be to earn a top up living salary to my pension.

Caution mixing ‘love’ with ‘business’.

To be blunt, (if you want blunt advice) you are already falling into a trap that likely will cause demise (of the business) . . .

your words “my plan is to attempt to move into photography” . . .

whatever you choose to do, do not plan to attempt, plan to do.

If you do not seek blunt advice, then please excuse and ignore this commentary.

***


Not sure weddings would be the top pick for myself and was more planning maybe a small home studio and on site portrait shoots including equine photography (equine portrait) that I already do a small amount of.


Expanding your Equine Photography might be a very good idea: it might render an 'hobby' which pays for itself and accomplishes some incidental revenue for a ripper night out each fortnight. . .

. . . continued below . .


. . . My idea is to try and find the gap between the bottom of the market and the top of the market with an aim to earn 20-30K a yr to keep my life comfortable in retirement and allow me to maintain my gear.


Don’t confuse what is an 'hobby' of sorts (be it a bit of Portraiture or Horses or a few Weddings here and there) with a ‘business’ which has “an aim to earn 20-30K a yr”.

If you want a photography business which nets to you earnings of 30K per annum, then, in approximate round figures and ignoring tax implications (if any) apropos your superannuation pension - then your business will need to turn over at least $50,000.

If extensive travel and/or unusual location/equipment insurance and/or extra capital purchases are necessary then add another $10 to 20K.

That in my opinion would be a ‘nice’ turnover for a small sole-trader business that it appears you are seeking.

However, if there are any other outgoings, especially (other) tax implications pursuant to your superannuation pension and those outgoings require a bump up of your business turnover beyond the $75,000 per annum threshold, then that is a whole new ballgame.

*

So let’s assume (conservatively) that you need to T/O $50,000 to an get additional $30K in your kick.

How many Horses is that?
How many Weddings is that?
How many Portrait Shots
How many Table Top shoots is that?

I am ignorant of Equine Photography: I have no contacts there either, but if a session averages $2500 then you’ll need 20 per year.

If you are ‘time rich’, then it doesn’t much matter if one session takes three hours or six hours and equally it doesn’t matter much of the prep and the post take a bit longer as it is not that you will be working the business on a strict rate per hour – but nonetheless, I think that you would not would want to be working a whole week (40~50 hours) to complete ‘one session’ to gross $2500.

*

Your friend’s baby/portraiture photography is an interesting analogy. She probably has created (by accident or design) a NICHE and is also located in an AREA where that niche is contagious especially within her NETWORKS, hence the business has created a TRIBE.

I suggest you think if you have that AREA and NETWORKS and a possible TRIBE in the Genre of Equine Photography.

*

Weddings & Portraiture, I have both experience and knowledge. I have shot more than 1500 weddings; managed my own company and also a large wedding/portrait studio. I terminated all my holdings and interests in the wedding photography business a few years ago (around 2012). I held on to the idea of niche marketing and creating a niche wedding photography business for my own company, which we trialed as Portraiture only and I kept up Commissioned Portraiture until only a couple of years ago. The trial of my niche Portrait Idea was successful, but after serious thought and considering the W&P trends in the USA, we choose not to continue with redesigning a our wedding photography business and sold up and got out.

You mention that you wouldn’t want to be a $600 shooter.

My view is there are generally three tiers of Wedding Shooters in AUS - based upon price. Broadly:
$100 to $1000
$1001 to $3000
$3001 above

If we did that same snapshot ten years ago it would look like this:
$999 to $2000
$2001 to $5000
$5001 above

Objective evidence seems to support my view. Trends in the USA also support this view.

The point is, the middle is being squeezed, and the squeezing is at an increasing rate over time.

So if you want to get into weddings (as a business) I think you need to be in the top price bracket - and not at the lower end of that bracket – and if you get in there you need to have a niche and a USP. The same logic applies if you take up Portraiture Sessions.


On the other hand if you are time rich and don’t work on a must have hourly rate and you want to keep up the hobby/business, then: four weddings per year at $5000 each (or a dozen Portrait Sessions at $1500 each) in addition to a dozen horse sessions at $2500 each, might just be the hobby/business that is: interesting, manageable, occupies just enough time, but without being cramped and intrusive into your relaxation time.

Good luck.

WW

[MissionMan]

I think you miss the point that photography is a communication. It is a performance. The story really does mean something and computers don't write stories.
If you treat your photography as a purely mechanical thing where a computer could do it for you, then I suspect that you well never be a good photographer. I would love for the automatic aspects of a camera to improve. That way I could just focus on on the human aspects, but I suspect that even in 5 or 20 years time that there will still be technical things that we have to do. I don't work out the best settings on a camera because I love doing that bit. I do it because I have to. I usually spend far more time thinking about and finding the best time and place for the photograph I want, than I do working out the technicalities of the camera or other equipment. As soon as one thing becomes automatic then the photographers (or any other tool user) will move on to more complex things. We discover and then do new things. Computers don't. They just do what they were programmed to do. To do totally new things requires a computer that can rewire itself to become something new - like us. Perhaps biological computers will eventually be made, but to think that will happen in the next 20 years is just dreaming. We are far more complex than any of our electronic computers.
I can see that one day a computer loaded with a stock library of "good" photos being able to take endless copies of them. That may improve the quality of the average holiday snap, but will hardy replace even the good wedding photographer.

- - - Updated - - -



Is that a comparison?

Its not whether photography is art, its whether people perceive it as art. if I gave you a machine that would allow you to put a box on a persons head and have a machine cut someone's hair to perfection, anyone can become a hairdresser with the only skill required being know how to set the machine. Hairdressing is very much an art form like photography and could become just as redundant through such a device. The problem is that not everyone wants art. They just want a photo. They don't appreciate the art behind it.

[Steve Axford]

Well, let those who don't appreciate art or stories look at computer photos. I'll bet that art and stories will not only survive, they will thrive.

[MissionMan]

Well, let those who don't appreciate art or stories look at computer photos. I'll bet that art and stories will not only survive, they will thrive.

Tell that to the book and music stores. Or Kodak. Or Nokia. How about Sony with the walkman? All of them had the markets wrapped up and thought they couldn't lose it.

But you have 20 years to prove me wrong.

[mikew09]

:-) - Wow, now thats a different take on the topic :-)

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks William - I can only say that your time spent reply is greatly valued. There is some obvious lake of personal experience in my comments and that is fair being it is the start point of what I have in mind. Good comments and some reality checks in your reply also appreciated. I never really started this thread with the intention of a reply such as your but I am apreciative of your time and detailed comment based on your vast experience.

Thanks for the valuable feed back. To be honest, its a pity you do not live locally as in getting closer to the date I would be looking to offer you to sit down over a few ales to assist me with a startup plan and stragety and such to what I plan to achieve.

Cheers,

Mike

[William W]

. . There is some obvious lake of personal experience in my comments and that is fair being it is the start point of what I have in mind. . . .

Exactly. Absolutely correct analysis of the situation. You are at the START POINT.

I think it is good that you asked a beginning type question - many people don't seek a range of views before they make big choices. Some don't even seek one other view.

I think it sis excellent that you have defined your situation most accurately "the start point of what I have in mind"- because you are now better equipped to make the best choices to plan how best manage it.

WW

[juju12jjj]

Welllllll... I know of lots of people who are now getting the more mature kids of friends to attend their weddings and do their photography.... a co-worker of mine's son started off in photography very casually as a teenager, but since he's got a great eye and real ability, plus had invested in some great camera equipment just for the love of his hobby, he's now is being asked to photograph weddings and baptisms and all sorts of events... even his holiday snaps put my photos to shame ;) He certainly doesn't charge as much as a "professional".... However, I don't think it will be too long before he could.

and thanks to Glenda for suggesting The Shot by Gary Ramage... sounds like an interesting book to check out...:)

[ricktas]

Perhaps we also need to ask what everyone considers a professional photographer to be?

- Is it someone who makes a living from photography?
- Is it someone who is very good at photography?
- Is it someone who charges over a certain amount? What is that amount?
- Is it someone who is good at marketing themselves?
- is it someone with a Diploma in photo imaging or an Arts Degree?
- Is it someone who conducts themselves in a business-like manner?
- Is it something else?

juju12jjj states "he's now is being asked to photograph weddings and baptisms and all sorts of events... He certainly doesn't charge as much as a "professional".... However, I don't think it will be too long before he could".

Which makes it appear at least one member thinks a professional is someone who charges an amount or above, that amount.

Before we can decide if professional photography is becoming extinct, we have to decide and define what a professional photographer is.

[Steve Axford]

Welllllll... I know of lots of people who are now getting the more mature kids of friends to attend their weddings and do their photography.... a co-worker of mine's son started off in photography very casually as a teenager, but since he's got a great eye and real ability, plus had invested in some great camera equipment just for the love of his hobby, he's now is being asked to photograph weddings and baptisms and all sorts of events... even his holiday snaps put my photos to shame ;) He certainly doesn't charge as much as a "professional".... However, I don't think it will be too long before he could.

and thanks to Glenda for suggesting The Shot by Gary Ramage... sounds like an interesting book to check out...:)

I had a friend who started out exactly like that. He took wedding photos because he liked it and people started to pay him. Eventually he gave up his day job and became a wedding photographer. It's a good way to start, and without too much risk.

Rick - good question. I know that insurance companies say that you are professional if you have ever been paid for a photo, but most of us wouldn't agree with that, particularly if we would like insurance. I looked up the meaning of professional and was left none the wiser. It would seem that "professional" can mean anything from how you are perceived to how you perceive yourself to it's your main income. I think the common definition nowdays relates to attitude and skill. Someone who acts like a professional and has the skill of a professional is a professional. That, of course, leaves the question of how does a professional act and how skillful do they need to be?
They other definition is - someone who earns their primary income from photography. It used to be a job, like plumber or journalist. I think that definition is fading as there are few jobs now for photographers in the way there used to be. That doesn't mean you can't earn money from it, just that you can't get a job as a photographer with the Herald anymore. Generally speaking, if you want to earn money as a photographer you have to work as an independent. Maybe it's taking weddings, maybe it taking landscapes (or maybe even fungi), but whatever it is it's unlikely to be with a big company.
Inevitably, there will be those who pretend to be professional when they have little claim to it.

[Hamster]

Before we can decide if professional photography is becoming extinct, we have to decide and define what a professional photographer is.

?
http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=TXR/TR20051/NAT/ATO/00001
?

[Steve Axford]

I guess that depends on whether the ATO is the final arbiter on language. Perhaps they just define tax.

[Mark L]

Perhaps we also need to ask what everyone considers a professional photographer to be?

- .....
- Is it someone who is very good at photography?
- Is it .....

I think this is an interesting point.
I reckon you can be professional simply be doing something "very good".
I've never made a dollar from my photos but one will be in the local paper tomorrow (happy to promote a clean up day at the local wetlands).
As Steve mentioned our definition may be dependent on language.
I think this may make me semi-profession .... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?151301-White-plumed-Honeyeater

But that's only because of the camera I'm using.:lol2:

[Hamster]

I guess that depends on whether the ATO is the final arbiter on language. Perhaps they just define tax.

Or maybe we should let security guards decide. In this case a pro is anyone with a tripod and/or an impressive looking camera. :-)

[William W]

Perhaps we also need to ask what everyone considers a professional photographer to be?

***

Before we can decide if professional photography is becoming extinct, we have to decide and define what a professional photographer is.


For clarity, my response was not about answering the question as it was posed in the thread header, (“Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct”)

My responses were addressing the questions and implications of the OP’s text, specifically (my bold for emphasis):

“In reality I need a retirement job to ensure my super lasts me and having worked in IT for the last 24 yrs, the only other skill I have is photography and close to turning 60 once I leave my current role there is no IT opportunities at my age "We are called the un-employable"”

In that context, I considered that the OP used “professional photographer” to mean "having an adequate business to sustain a viable income".

In the absence of the OP providing details of his financial position, I gave example of a business as a Sole Trader turning over up to $75,000, which is probably in the ballpark of a viable income to be supplementary to a mean Superannuation, taken as a Life Pension.

I think that “Professional” is used to mean many things, but in this case, I think that the OP meant “making money - and not just pocket money”.

***

On the broader and general question of “Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct” - and if asked without any specific contextual premise; I would define "Professional Photographer" as "making an income from Photography" - that income could be a secondary income, but not "a hundred dollars here and there".

WW

[mikew09]

Thanx William - I certainly wont need to earn a full income in retirement, but to have the luxuries we enjoy before retirement after retirement I will need some propping up if my super is to last me. When I say luxuries, I mean items like camera gear, a few trips away each yr, I expect I wil need to replace the car at least once etc. I may be a skeptic in some peoples views but I do expect a very long retirement :-)

The other side of the coin I didnt reflect on was the need to do something of self worth after retirement - Do I really want to leave the workforce and all that comes with it, not really. Do I want to continue to work my @rse off in a job (albeit well paying) and one I am loosing the passion for - NO. Do I want to pursue something I enjoy doing, be able to manage it to a level to maintain a healthy retirement work / life balance, with a possibility of luxury disposable income - absolutely.
Apologies if my post reflects a dire straits situation where without additional income, in 5 yrs of retirement I will be on the side of the road starving - that wasnt my intention nor is it accurate.

What I will say is I have enjoyed this thread discussion - I find the topic quite interesting and in some way surprising :-)

Oh, I am no scholar either and apparently my written expression is not my strong point - LOL hahaha

[William W]

. . . The other side of the coin I didnt reflect on was the need to do something of self worth after retirement - Do I really want to leave the workforce and all that comes with it, not really

A critical element for longevity, happiness, healthy life and general fulfillment. I have several examples of friends, colleagues and also family who pictured 'retirement' as the ultimate goal only to find that without a daily cause and challenge they were bored - or worse.

WW

[ameerat42]

O-hhh! As they say, "Yassoun get youstuit".
:D

[mikew09]

Haha ;-)