Career Advice

[kiwi]

I'm not sure I did the right thing today, see what you think

I had a call out of the blue from a father of a year 12 student. The student said to his dad that he quite fancied a career as a sports photographer (he has a dslr but really a newbie)

His father asked me whether a career as a sports photographer was feasible

I basically said based on the evidence I have that I really didn't think it was a good career choice. That there was limited demand and abundant supply. I said photography as a career is possible but very hard, if he was really interested that he should study photography as part of an overall course at say a tafe, preferably a secondary part

What do you think ?

[ricktas]

Agree, No use silver lining any thing. Honest, good, basic advice is always worthwhile.

[Paul G]

I can see how a career as a sports photographer would be highly sort after by a young guy (or girl) and I wouldn't say it's out of the realm of possibility but only after first learning the craft and building some good contacts especially with the major newspapers and sports magazines. Very competitive field though but one that presents great opportunities to get 'up close' and to travel.

[bigdazzler]

I think it was good honest advice Dazza ... but I also think that if anyone can make it happen, a 17-18yo can. Hes got plenty of time to become the best he can possibly be if he takes the right path and sticks solid. I wish Id made a solid decision when I was that age.

[Karl]

Nothing wrong with that advice :th3: - if he studies hard in the right courses, learns how to use his equipment and works hard he may achieve dream but for every sports photog out there I would hazzard to guess there is probably a 1/2 doz or so that never made it.

Karl

[old dog]

good advice Darren. I hope he listens to it.

[atky]

Nothing wrong with that advice :th3: - if he studies hard in the right courses, learns how to use his equipment and works hard he may achieve dream but for every sports photog out there I would hazzard to guess there is probably a 1/2 doz or so that never made it.

Karl

More like 1,000 or so that never made it.

[kiwi]

Yes. my last estimate was there were 20 FT sport togs in Australia

[Jules]

Nothing wrong in what you said there Darren. That was good, honest advice.

[hus]

Your advice pretty much hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

[Xenedis]

What do you think ?

I think you were honest and did the right thing.

There's no point in causing the kid to develop unrealistic expectations; he needs to be aware of what goes with that business.

The problem is that photography has become so pervasive that people think that a career as a photographer is easily approachable, when in reality is it probably not.

If he's really serious about it, can make the contacts and has the ability, he can do it, but if it's a case of him simply having a camera, enjoying photography and thinking it's a meal ticket, he needs to understand the reality of the situation.

[Fantasyphoto]

There is also more to professional sports photography than good technique. The good ones also have a very strong creative element in their work and are always looking for a new angle. Having worked as a volunteer in the photo section during the Sydney Olympics I got to see first hand how the best sports photographers in Australia and some of the best from OS "SEE" their shots and I learnt heaps including the fact I would never be dedicated enough to be able to do their job.

Try looking at the work of Craig Golding http://www.craiggoldingphotos.com/Artist.asp?ArtistID=26352&Akey=X2PSXC5Q

Now how can you judge an unknown person such as this young guy.... impossible, but you cannot also mislead them by saying it is easy. No I think your advice is sound and if he is really determined to succeed then he will probably ignore your advice and succeed anyway.

[kiwi]

Quite right, I've admired craigs work for some time also

There are apparently only 4 ft sport photographers in Australia to put this in context

You're right tho that if he has the fire he'll give it a shake anyhow

[Longshots]

I think your advice was excellent. There's always was an oversupply of photographers to actual jobs. Even when I started off. However, that oversupply has changed dramatically, and is now accompanied by a large reduction in perceived value in the results of a full time photographer.

Good god, I've just written to Australian Graphic Design Association and the International body ICOGRADA strongly complaining, because their heavily funded week long event (ironically titled "Optimism) has an associated company producing a "welcome book" which they want photographers to submit FREE photographs.

What else do people need to illustrate a serious downturn in the value of the professional photographic industry, when leading national and international organisations perceive similar (to graphic designers and illustrators) visual communicators as having no value at all ?

(this comment will also be part of another topic - which I will post soon)

I've been lucky or unlucky to have had two careers, both with a vast oversupply, and have managed to earn a living from each one in my time. Both times its required a huge amount of drive, ambition, and self discipline.

[Steve Axford]

I think that anyone who wants to be a "pro" photographer should discouraged. If my son wanted to be one, I'd discourage him, same if he wanted to be an actor. If he really, really wanted to do it and persisted, then I'd support him, but not for some idle whim. Especially if he thought it may be an easy option, coz it's definitely not.

There will always be openings for pro photographers, but having a good amount of luck or another source of income will always be of great value. At least actors can earn lots, even if the average just scrape by. How many photographers earn as much as Tom Cruise?

[JM Tran]

I think that anyone who wants to be a "pro" photographer should discouraged. If my son wanted to be one, I'd discourage him, same if he wanted to be an actor. If he really, really wanted to do it and persisted, then I'd support him, but not for some idle whim. Especially if he thought it may be an easy option, coz it's definitely not.

There will always be openings for pro photographers, but having a good amount of luck or another source of income will always be of great value. At least actors can earn lots, even if the average just scrape by. How many photographers earn as much as Tom Cruise?

I think thats a bad comparison between Maverick and pro photographers.

It is much easier to become a successful pro photographer than being the next Hollywood mega-star. Not to mention the ratio of the actors commanding such salary is a lot more tiny in comparison to pro photographers in society

The good thing that a lot ppl dont realize for professional photography is that our income does not 'plateau' - it does not flatten out to a point where we physically, legally and academically go further such as government workers, military personnel, vanilla type pharmacists - AND actors - believe it or not.

One's income in this field is solely based around our skills, marketing and business conducts, and you can earn as much as you like as long as you know how to.

From my experience last financial year was the 2nd year of being a full time photographer and I have seen my revenue increase nearly three-fold since I got a bit more business savvy. Now with the acquisition of a new office in the city in Adelaide, and going overseas next week for fashion shoots in China and photo essays in Tibet and Mongolia, I think this financial year will be even better as I am putting myself out there more.

To me its all about giving it a shot, I will never discourage anyone from their dream be it big or small, and would rather try and fail and learn from it, rather than not try and all and dream about it for the rest of my life.

Who dares wins, really.

[kiwi]

JM, I agree with what you say, who dares wins......Im just not sure it's sound pragmatic advice to give to a student who might be debating say a career as a photographer vs an engineer vs social worker etc

If he's got talent as a photographer after getting that other training behind them they can then conquer the world

[JM Tran]

JM, I agree with what you say, who dares wins......Im just not sure it's sound pragmatic advice to give to a student who might be debating say a career as a photographer vs an engineer vs social worker etc

If he's got talent as a photographer after getting that other training behind them they can then conquer the world

I'll tell u this Darren, I rather the kid try and fail now, than attempt to realize his dream in his late 30s or 40s when he has become disillusioned with his current job - and like a lot of wannabes atm - quit his job and try and make it big in photography - when he probably has a mortgage and family to look after! :D

better do it now and get it out of the way when hes still under the wing of his family LOL

[kiwi]

Im not sure I could recommend that to someone when almost certainly (99% chance) he would fail

Yes, I might miss the 1% but as said beforem they'd make it happen anyhow even if they didnt study to be that.

[Steve Axford]

My point was, if it's really his dream then go for it. If it's not then there are much better choices to earn money. The analogy with actors is just to point out that most will struggle, but some make heaps. With photographers, most will struggle, and none make heaps. Who knows a photographer who has conquered the world?

[Longshots]

Hey I dared - did I win ? I'm a full time pro. And the opportunities that were around even ten years ago are no longer the same.

The general consensus of many in the profession that it's lifespan is seriously challenged.

So yes sure go and live the dream. For all of the ones that do make it, I can see a vast number who dont. So if we're answering the original question, the state of the market is best described as seriously challenging. Much more so than even just a short time ago. Most of the extremely well known photographers I know of, are fast exchanging their skill as a photographer to one of highly successful speakers/educators. With so few sports photographers positions actually available, I would definitely question it as a good career path. Saying that, there is definitely opportunities to go out and with the right personality, drive and ambition, I would be quite sure that with all of those factors and a good degree of skill and craft, yes they could succeed.

[ving]

no sense in sugar coating it hey. :)

[Fantasyphoto]

....... Who knows a photographer who has conquered the world?

I do, Ken Duncan, at least that is what he said the last time I saw him :th3:

Oh and there's his mates Peter Eastway and David Oliver who are both "Masters Of Photography"..... David will be visiting our club on the 19/8.

I suppose it comes down to your definition of "conquered the world" ;)

Hey Steve, it's good to see you have joined a camera club, I saw your images come up on the AV at our Interclub two weeks ago.

[RaoulIsidro]

Payscale.com director Al Lee listed 7 high paying jobs you don't need to go to college for.
No.1 is a Freelance Photographer ($US47,800 median)
No.4 is a Nuclear Power Reactor Operator ala Homer Simpson ($US79,100 median)
and No.7 Airport Air Traffic Controller ($US60,200 median)
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-7_jobs_to_skip_college_for-1374

[JM Tran]

My point was, if it's really his dream then go for it. If it's not then there are much better choices to earn money. The analogy with actors is just to point out that most will struggle, but some make heaps. With photographers, most will struggle, and none make heaps. Who knows a photographer who has conquered the world?


you know how much Anie Leibovitz makes before she went into a 24 mil debt? Gary Fong is quite rich from photography too but more so from his marketing side than actual photos.

theres quite a lot of pro photographers making more than our prime minister makes per year.

had you been or are a working photographer than you wouldnt be saying none makes heaps......because there are a lot with 6 figure revenues and some at 7 etc

[Fantasyphoto]

Quite right, I've admired craigs work for some time......

And he is a top guy as well, very humble and unassuming at the Olympics and also when he did a presentation at our club last year.



...... only 4 ft sport photographers in Australia.....

I know Craig is fairly short but he is definately taller than 4 ft :lol:

[Steve Axford]

I do, Ken Duncan, at least that is what he said the last time I saw him :th3:

Oh and there's his mates Peter Eastway and David Oliver who are both "Masters Of Photography"..... David will be visiting our club on the 19/8.

I suppose it comes down to your definition of "conquered the world" ;)

Hey Steve, it's good to see you have joined a camera club, I saw your images come up on the AV at our Interclub two weeks ago.
Did you like them? I'm a bit too far away to be active in a camera club - a 10hr round trip makes it a bit hard, but the comps provide some interest.

Anyway, back to the subject. I think KD is more of a businessman than a photographer. His photos are very formula driven, which really demonstrates the point (made elsewhere) that first you need to be a businessman, and a long way second you need to be a photographer. Perhaps you don't even need to be one, though it does help in Ken's case. I wouldn't suggest that there a no pro photographers who are successful, coz of course there are. It's just that they don't rate highly in the Who's Who anymore.

[zollo]

I think it was good honest advice Dazza ... but I also think that if anyone can make it happen, a 17-18yo can. Hes got plenty of time to become the best he can possibly be if he takes the right path and sticks solid. I wish Id made a solid decision when I was that age.

totally agree with this. when I was doing the diploma in photoimaging the majority of the class was late teens/early twenties - very hungry for photographic work. not to mention it was a full class and only a handfull dropped out.

[Steve Axford]

you know how much Anie Leibovitz makes before she went into a 24 mil debt? Gary Fong is quite rich from photography too but more so from his marketing side than actual photos.

theres quite a lot of pro photographers making more than our prime minister makes per year.

had you been or are a working photographer than you wouldnt be saying none makes heaps......because there are a lot with 6 figure revenues and some at 7 etc

Quite a lot? A few make more than the PM, especially when you consider that the PM job comes with a pension. 6 or 7 figure earnings for the very best in any profession isn't all that great, especially for the self employed. Heaps means - say 100 million per year. I am surprised that you seem to be arguing that photographers are well paid.

[JM Tran]

Quite a lot? A few make more than the PM, especially when you consider that the PM job comes with a pension. 6 or 7 figure earnings for the very best in any profession isn't all that great, especially for the self employed. Heaps means - say 100 million per year. I am surprised that you seem to be arguing that photographers are well paid.

I dont need to argue mate, Im speaking from self experience and from my colleagues, and the fact that decent photographers in Aus who work full time earn more than the median income here, and they generally work less than the 38 hours a week norm. My cousin shoots weddings once a week in Melbourne, he made just under 70k after tax last year.......poor him for only doing that once a week......

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-7_jobs_to_skip_college_for-1374


My point was, if it's really his dream then go for it. If it's not then there are much better choices to earn money.

I would encourage job satisfaction over making xxx amount of money. How many here actually can put their hands up and say I wake up everyday looking forward to work, and have never uttered the phrase 'thank god its Friday'!


....... Who knows a photographer who has conquered the world?

Quite a few, how about you? Oh hey that rhymes! But given enough time, they could all earn more than a dime!

I dont know, you seem to be coming up with a lot of generalization and assumptions about what being a photographer is all about. All I can say is, thank god that boy is not your child.

The ironic thing is Steve, I am a bit part actor/extra too, having had a tiny tiny role in the last Scott Hicks production movie The Boys are Back, with a role next to Clive Owen in Adelaide. Hence your analogy was a bit off in my opinion.

Remember the Soup Nazi from Seinfield? Heres my take on it

'NO DREAMS FOR YOU!'

[Steve Axford]

Ah well, I think we disagree. I guess I've come from a world that rates things differently, so I should just back off and leave it to you.

[JM Tran]

Ah well, I think we disagree. I guess I've come from a world that rates things differently, so I should just back off and leave it to you.

Dont worry Im not picking a fight or trying to counter everything you said Steve, just offering my perspective and thoughts and discussion, all good

[kiwi]

It's quite irrelevant what the top 10% or bottom 10% earn, it's the median that would be interesting

I'm sure ABS would hold that data, I might look later

I do know that there are no photographers in the BRW top 500. None that I could identify anyway

[kiwi]

Table from the USA, photography is a minor under "art"

Best Undergrad College Degrees By Salary Starting Median Pay Mid-Career Median Pay
Petroleum Engineering $93,000 $157,000
Aerospace Engineering $59,400 $108,000
Chemical Engineering $64,800 $108,000
Electrical Engineering $60,800 $104,000
Nuclear Engineering $63,900 $104,000
Applied Mathematics $56,400 $101,000
Biomedical Engineering $54,800 $101,000
Physics $50,700 $99,600
Computer Engineering $61,200 $99,500
Economics $48,800 $97,800
Computer Science $56,200 $97,700
Industrial Engineering $58,200 $97,600
Mechanical Engineering $58,300 $97,400
Building Construction $52,900 $94,500
Materials Science & Engineering $59,400 $93,600
Civil Engineering $53,500 $93,400
Statistics $50,000 $92,900
Finance $47,500 $91,500
Software Engineering $56,700 $91,300
Management Information Systems $50,900 $90,300
Mathematics $46,400 $88,300
Government $41,500 $87,300
Information Systems $49,300 $87,100
Construction Management $50,400 $87,000
Environmental Engineering $51,000 $85,500
Electrical Engineering Technology $55,500 $85,300
Supply Chain Management $49,400 $84,500
Mechanical Engineering Technology $53,300 $84,300
Chemistry $42,400 $83,700
Computer Information Systems $48,300 $83,100
International Relations $42,400 $83,000
Molecular Biology $40,200 $82,900
Urban Planning $41,600 $82,800
Industrial Design $42,100 $82,300
Geology $44,600 $82,200
Biochemistry $39,800 $82,000
Political Science $40,100 $81,700
Industrial Technology $49,400 $81,500
Food Science $48,500 $81,100
Information Technology $49,600 $79,300
Architecture $41,900 $78,400
Telecommunications $40,000 $78,300
Film Production $36,100 $77,800
Accounting $44,600 $77,500
Marketing $38,600 $77,300
Occupational Health and Safety $52,300 $77,000
Civil Engineering Technology $48,100 $75,600
International Business $42,600 $73,700
Advertising $37,800 $73,200
History $38,500 $73,000
Philosophy $39,100 $72,900
Biology $38,400 $72,800
Microbiology $40,600 $72,600
American Studies $40,900 $72,500
Fashion Design $37,700 $72,200
Communications $38,200 $72,200
Environmental Science $41,600 $71,600
Global & International Studies $38,400 $71,400
Geography $39,600 $71,200
Business $41,100 $70,600
Public Administration $39,000 $70,600
Landscape Architecture $43,200 $70,300
Biotechnology $47,500 $70,100
Zoology $34,600 $68,800
Drama $40,700 $68,300
Nursing $52,700 $68,200
Health Sciences $38,300 $68,100
Radio & Television $39,200 $67,800
Hotel Management $37,900 $67,600
English $37,800 $67,500
Forestry $37,000 $67,200
Journalism $35,800 $66,600
Hospitality & Tourism $36,200 $65,800
Literature $37,500 $65,700
Public Health $37,800 $65,700
Liberal Arts $35,700 $63,900
Public Relations $35,700 $63,400
Anthropology $36,200 $62,900
Psychology $35,300 $62,500
Animal Science $34,600 $62,100
Sociology $36,600 $62,100
Human Resources $38,100 $61,900
Kinesiology $34,400 $61,600
French $39,600 $61,400
Multimedia & Web Design $40,100 $61,200
Photography $35,100 $61,200
Health Care Administration $37,700 $60,800
Organizational Management $41,500 $60,500
Fine Arts $35,400 $60,300
Humanities $38,600 $60,100
Sports Management $37,300 $59,800
Agriculture $42,300 $59,700
Theater $35,300 $59,600
Fashion Merchandising $35,000 $59,300
Medical Technology $43,800 $59,300
Exercise Science $32,800 $59,000
Spanish $37,100 $58,200
Criminal Justice $35,600 $58,000
Visual Communication $36,800 $57,700
Social Science $38,100 $57,200
Art History $39,400 $57,100
Music $36,700 $57,000
Graphic Design $35,400 $56,800
Nutrition $42,200 $56,700
Interior Design $34,400 $56,600
Interdisciplinary Studies $35,600 $55,700
Education $35,100 $54,900
Art $33,500 $54,800
Religious Studies $34,700 $54,400
Dietetics $40,400 $54,200
Special Education $36,000 $53,800
Recreation & Leisure Studies $33,300 $53,200
Theology $34,700 $51,300
Paralegal Studies/Law $35,100 $51,300
Horticulture $35,000 $50,800
Culinary Arts $35,900 $50,600
Athletic Training $32,800 $45,700
Social Work $31,800 $44,900
Elementary Education $31,600 $44,400
Child and Family Studies $29,500 $38,400

Methodology
This chart is based upon PayScale Salary Survey data for full-time employees in the United States who possess a Bachelor's degree and no higher degrees and have majored in the subjects listed above. These results may not represent all graduates with these degrees. All colleges and universities across the nation were included. As a result, median salary figures may be skewed toward large state universities, since these schools have the largest attendance. Salary is the sum of compensation from base salary, bonuses, profit sharing, commissions, and overtime, if applicable. Salary does not include equity (stock) compensation. See full methodology (http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/salary-report.asp) for more.

[Natsky]

I think you gave the father valid advice.

If the student is really talented and passionate, then you won't be able to stop them pursuing a photography career and at least they will be forewarned about how tough things can be.

If the student is just daydreaming about possible careers and this kinda sounds great, then you have saved them some time and angst.

[Longshots]

There have been several surveys recently on the state of the professional photography market - all of them with fairly depressing results. One major survey in the UK presented the result that 1 in 5, were no longer able to rely on photography as their full time income (where they had been full time previously)

Closer to home, this story and link produces more relevant state of play:

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/retail/20100630-not-a-pretty-picture.html


And here is the source from IBIS:

http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=674


Personally I constantly see and witness a huge downturn in the market.

[kiwi]

Average profit seems a bit grim

[Longshots]

Oh and a NSW Gov survey from just a few years ago (in "better" times), reported the average earnings of a full time photographer was less than a clerical assistant at just (annual) $32,000

[maccaroneski]

I am not wanting to suggest anything untoward about any photographer however my plumber only "earns" about 70k per annum, but geez he lives in a nice house and has a nice car... :)

[Longshots]

I am not wanting to suggest anything untoward about any photographer however my plumber only "earns" about 70k per annum, but geez he lives in a nice house and has a nice car... :)


which is pretty good - = over twice the average income of the average photographer - so your point was ?

[Redgum]

Geez! Redgum's been quiet. :)
I'm sorry but other than JM I don't think anyone has any idea what they're talking about here. Obviously, the picture you have of a "professional photographer" comes straight out of a glossy magazine. None of you have mentioned the multitude of photographic occupations that exist. What about cadet photographers for newspapers, for advertising agencies, the thousands of photographers that work in government. Sure, they may not be clicking away every hour with their camera, they may be doing mundane things like filing or presenting in court or creating indexes but they are professional photographers in every sense.
Think about it, a barrister spends say 5% of his/her time in court, but that's his/her job and they're still professional. Salary is not in question.
Killing that kids ambition is diabolical but fortunately he won't listen to advice from people that aren't there. Kids are too smart these days and they need to be.
Stats are stats and rarely give a true picture. There are probably thousands more but Packer, Murdoch and Ted Turner were all pro-photographers at one time or another. Just not the type you may have in your imagination. They all seem to appear in the rich lists.
Photography is not my first profession but I earn far more from that work than any of the lists in this thread indicate and I'm not over gifted creatively or academically.
Give the kid a go, give him encouragement, you never know, he may employ you one day. That's if you're not too old by then.

[kiwi]

I dont get what you arre saying. I would have thought the definition of a professional photographer is one that earns the majority of income from photography, not filing.

[JM Tran]

I dont get what you arre saying. I would have thought the definition of a professional photographer is one that earns the majority of income from photography, not filing.


well to be honest, yesterday's shoot for some L'oreal hair stuff was from 10AM till 5PM, the ACTUAL amount of shooting I did was probably an hour or less. The rest of the time was spent looking at the shots with the hairdresser, MUA and models, and setting the lights with the assistants, and a bit of driving around, packing up, waiting, oh and eating the free food provided:D

I dont do THAT much actual photo snapping in say, a 30 ish hour working week from photography, unless its a wedding day, but thats not a daily thing, thank god!

[kiwi]

Yeah, I get that, but you do all of that as the business side of being a photographer, but I don't see how this relates to 1000's of govt workers being employed as photographers ?

[Kym]

Govt worker - oxymoron? :D

[hoffy]

I think Redgum & JM has hit the nail on the head. The only thing I wouldn't be encouraging the young lad to do is stick with just sports photography. I think the most encouraging thing to do is to encourage the lad to broaden his photography and see how that goes. Maybe encourage him to speak with some papers and see if he can do work experience (if that still exists these days??).

There is only one way that he is going to find out if he has got it is for him to give it a shot.

[kiwi]

I'm sure also that sport photography is not a wise objective in isolation

General photography another matter

Even so, everything I've seen suggests that it's not exactly the best choice, if you are not 100% committed and talented, it's not a safe thing to study I suppose. Not everyone wants safe though

I do believe you can achieve anything if you are driven enough

I'm still not sure whether to recommend year 12's to study photography as a career is good advice in general

[Steve Axford]

There are probably thousands more but Packer, Murdoch and Ted Turner were all pro-photographers at one time or another.

Mmm. First I've heard of Murdoch ever being a pro-photographer. Strangely, it's not mentioned in Wiki, nor for Kerry Packer either. Both had very rich fathers so any involvement in photography would have been very fleeting and hardly something of note. Certainly not something about which you could say, "He started as a photographer and look where he is now!"

I haven't checked Ted Turner.

[JM Tran]

Mmm. First I've heard of Murdoch ever being a pro-photographer. Strangely, it's not mentioned in Wiki, nor for Kerry Packer either. Both had very rich fathers so any involvement in photography would have been very fleeting and hardly something of note. Certainly not something about which you could say, "He started as a photographer and look where he is now!"

I haven't checked Ted Turner.

Well Jacqui Kennedy/Onassis was a semi-pro photographer of some note before she met the Kennedy dynasty:D

I wouldnt have even guessed if I hadnt seen a doco on her life ages ago, and some sample photos from her portfolio too

[kiwi]

So was Dennis Hopper......but I still am missing the analogy with "he thousands of photographers that work in government. Sure, they may not be clicking away every hour with their camera, they may be doing mundane things like filing or presenting in court or creating indexes but they are professional photographers in every sense."

[Steve Axford]

Well Jacqui Kennedy/Onassis was a semi-pro photographer of some note before she met the Kennedy dynasty:D

I wouldnt have even guessed if I hadnt seen a doco on her life ages ago, and some sample photos from her portfolio too

If I was born with the wealth of Jacqi Bouvier, I could probably have been a semi-professional anything I liked, which is just my point. Naming the rich as having some involvement with photography at some stage of their lives proves absolutely nothing. Also, these guys are all quite old now and what they did when they left school is hardly of much relevance now.

[Longshots]

OK so back to the 'was this the correct advice ?"

In my opinion, as one who for the past 18 years has earnt his sole income from taking pictures for clients - ie in my personal view as a full time photographer; considering the state of the industry at the moment, then the answer in my opinion is yes.

Sure just about everyone would agree that you will probably need to entertain the concept of multi careers, that the option of a sole career is unlikely for photographers - which is what I did for the first 17 years of my photographic career. And I fully expect to have to go back to diversifying again.


Lets get back to the topic ? The point about which already fantastically wealthy past and present people, all of which were born into a good degree of wealth, was at some point a very competent or talented photographer, somehow confuses me as to the relevance to the OP's topic. Or how that demonstrates whether Darren gave good advice or not ?


Does that mean that the student shouldnt be given the chance to dream ? If given this honest and truthful advice ? Of course not. If that student wants something bad enough, they'll put in the hard yard and go out and make it happen. Will they be able to survive on their income from just photography though ? My sincere feeling is that unfortunately, they wont, regardless of the effort or talent put in to the task.

[bb45pz]

I think its interesting reading everyone comment on having to earn a certain amount of money from photography as a career. I think to a certain extent (and especially at that age) you get by on what you earn and if you aren't getting by with your photographic earnings then you take up a part time job to help pay the bills.

The issue comes later in life when you start to consider a change in career to what your passion may be but your commitments are then so much higher that the earnings from your desired career don't match what you currently are on. Its at this point that making a living out of photography becomes much more difficult.

Practical advice is to get him moving towards a sensible job like a trade or doing uni etc but this may lead him into the position that I (and many others) find ourselves in of being unable to go back and work as a photographer. However if he's been earning not much working as a photographer its much easier to then go and do a trade (in your late twenties perhaps) and go down another track.

Having said that, let him know what the projected earnings of some trades are vs photography. I'm in the fire industry and many of the guys in my team (just technicians) are on low 6 figures with very little stress and only a bit of overtime.

It'll come down to passion vs money and if the passion is that strong that he'll potentially give up 30-40grand a year then perhaps he'll succeed.

[Redgum]

So was Dennis Hopper......but I still am missing the analogy with "he thousands of photographers that work in government. Sure, they may not be clicking away every hour with their camera, they may be doing mundane things like filing or presenting in court or creating indexes but they are professional photographers in every sense."
G'day Kiwi, that's not an analogy but a fact. There are thousands of photographers working in government as photographers, just simply they don't take photographs all day as you imagine but have other tasks incorporated in their work.

[Redgum]

OK so back to the 'was this the correct advice ?"

In my opinion, as one who for the past 18 years has earnt his sole income from taking pictures for clients - ie in my personal view as a full time photographer; considering the state of the industry at the moment, then the answer in my opinion is yes.

Sure just about everyone would agree that you will probably need to entertain the concept of multi careers, that the option of a sole career is unlikely for photographers - which is what I did for the first 17 years of my photographic career. And I fully expect to have to go back to diversifying again.
William, that is the topic. This young person wants to give photography a go as a career. Sure, you may not be successful now or need to diversify but that shouldn't kill his ambition. You have been going for 18 years and that's a long time for a career these days.
The industry hasn't changed for the worse. I started in 1965 from a very poor position and what I earn from photography alone now will see me very comfortable for the rest of my life. I wish the same outcome on this young guy and would encourage him wholeheartedly to pursue his ambition.
Yes, diversification is the key to even greater success and no one should be reliant on one source of income if that's possible. For some it may be two or more careers paralleling each other and for others it will be two or more jobs. The days of a single lifetime career are well and truly over.
Go for it young fella and if it doesn't work you have a lifetime to take many other directions. William, your choice and my choice are limited by where we are (ageing) but don't let that hinder others.

[ricktas]

Lets get back to the topic ? The point about which already fantastically wealthy past and present people, all of which were born into a good degree of wealth, was at some point a very competent or talented photographer, somehow confuses me as to the relevance to the OP's topic.

Interesting to also note on this is that Jacqui, Ted, Packer and Murdoch did not remain pro-photographers for their entire lives. If photography for them was such a big part of their lives, one has to ask why they changed careers?

Yes it is good to encourage anyone, no matter what their age, to pursue their dreams, but you also have to be realistic and make sure they are informed. No use going into anything with Rose coloured glasses cause you will be left with a bitter taste in your mouth. Better to gather the facts and then decide if you still want to pursue it.

[Longshots]

William, that is the topic. This young person wants to give photography a go as a career. Sure, you may not be successful now or need to diversify but that shouldn't kill his ambition. You have been going for 18 years and that's a long time for a career these days.
The industry hasn't changed for the worse. I started in 1965 from a very poor position and what I earn from photography alone now will see me very comfortable for the rest of my life. I wish the same outcome on this young guy and would encourage him wholeheartedly to pursue his ambition.
Yes, diversification is the key to even greater success and no one should be reliant on one source of income if that's possible. For some it may be two or more careers paralleling each other and for others it will be two or more jobs. The days of a single lifetime career are well and truly over.
Go for it young fella and if it doesn't work you have a lifetime to take many other directions. William, your choice and my choice are limited by where we are (ageing) but don't let that hinder others.

This is the topic.


His father asked me whether a career as a sports photographer was feasible

Go back and read the OP question, because I have repeatedly gone back to it. To repeat, the original topic was about wether Darren gave someone the right advice or not.

I would definitely disagree with your comment that there is nothing wrong with the industry, much as I would like to agree with you, the industry has changed for the worse.

Whereas a few decades ago, you would see a large number of sports photographers all shooting for various different media, you now see relatively few. Thats the question I've been responding to. Not how much or how little can be earnt. Not which famous wealthy family member picked up a camera or not.


I posted various links to government and independent surveys that support the point of view that the industry is definitely in decline. I certainly dont want to hinder anyone, but think its reasonable to point out the current state of the industry as many of my peers, colleagues and gov bodies see it.


Darren went on to suggest just how many sports photographer there are that work for various media outlets, and the various independent shooters out there who survive full or even part time. Its a small number. So this has everything to do with "advice", and nothing to do with "encouragement". Its advice that was sought and an opinion on the validity of that advice based on the question of Sports Photography.

Yes its feasible, is it a good career choice, I believe Darren would actually be more suited than many here to make that call. And I'd agree with his very original question, which was

I'm not sure I did the right thing today, see what you think

So in my view that actually is the topic, and yes I think you did, and the variety of results, support that point of view.

[Redgum]

I would definitely disagree with your comment that there is nothing wrong with the industry, much as I would like to agree with you, the industry has changed for the worse.
Perhaps you need to change with the industry?


Whereas a few decades ago, you would see a large number of sports photographers all shooting for various different media, you now see relatively few.
I worked on the television coverage at Lang Park 20 years ago. Far more photographers there now than there was in those days. Mind you they're all gone in 30 minutes because that is the limit they have to file digitally. Just look at any of the major games on television - proof before your eyes.
William, the change you see is diversification. No longer can you stick to one genre, sports or even studio/product or news. You need to handle many of them. That's the information this kid needs and it may suit him right down to the ground. Don't be negative because his father only said "sports" which is probably an outcome of knowing Darren.
I get more work than I can handle because there is no experienced people willing to change their mould. Nothing wrong with the industry, just different. Photography/photojournalism is a wonderful career.

[Longshots]

Redgum - when did this become about me ?

Thanks for the advice though, but its unnecessary, and unwarranted.

We can agree to disagree on the original question though.


A little bit of checking and you will find that very few of them are paid to be there. Most are shooting on a spec basis and see if what they capture sells.

I really dont think I'm being negative though. Its just my opinion on the original question :)

[kiwi]

There were originally two questions, the first whether specifically sport photography was a career choice suitable for a year 12. Clearly not in any opinion I can find.

Secondly whether photography in general is, clearly opinions differ here a little.

[Dan Cripps]

the fact that decent photographers in Aus who work full time earn more than the median income here

You must be reading different stats to me.

The vast majority of full time Australian photographers are earning well less than the national average annual wage.

I reckon there's only 3-4 in Tasmania who are in excess of the national average.

[JM Tran]

You must be reading different stats to me.

The vast majority of full time Australian photographers are earning well less than the national average annual wage.

I reckon there's only 3-4 in Tasmania who are in excess of the national average.

I dont know about you, but numbers means crap to me honestly, Im only going by my colleagues and associates I know in the business with me. Cant say any of us are eating bread and water nor are...poor....

The problem with those 'statistics' is that it takes into account idiots who call themselves 'full time' photographers and declare their tax with not all of their earnings declared, so what they earn officially on paper is a lot less than what they really earn, and should really be labeled as part timers or casual jobbers. Did you know that?

There are a lot of tax loopholes in the photography business.......and you know what they say about statistics......

[Redgum]

Legitimately, stats will never be close to the truth. I really don't know anyone in the business that's not incorporated, a proprietary limited company. I work under three banners with photography and filmmaking and they're all listed statistically as investment companies. That's the ASIC code from where the statistics are derived.

[Steve Axford]

I dont know about you, but numbers means crap to me honestly, Im only going by my colleagues and associates I know in the business with me. Cant say any of us are eating bread and water nor are...poor....

The problem with those 'statistics' is that it takes into account idiots who call themselves 'full time' photographers and declare their tax with not all of their earnings declared, so what they earn officially on paper is a lot less than what they really earn, and should really be labeled as part timers or casual jobbers. Did you know that?

There are a lot of tax loopholes in the photography business.......and you know what they say about statistics......
This applies to all self-employed people. Numbers are numbers and mean something if you use a little intelligence to interpret them. You guys might be the exceptions and are earnings heaps - that's great - but lets not confuse that with the crappy numbers, that really do mean something.

[farmer_rob]

If you are talking about 'median' figures, remember that 50% are above the median value, and 50% under. JM Tran clearly associates with the upper 50% and not the lower 50% :).

[Steve Axford]

Yep, it's like acting. The top echelon earn squillions, but the median - well that's a different matter. But then again - the top echelon in photography don't earn squillions. At least, nobody has managed to come up with an example.

[Redgum]

In that sense you're probably right, Steve. There aren't many photographers that work independently (sole trader) or specifically in the photographic business. All my friends, for instance, diversify, and have a range of occupations be it filmmaking, writing, publishing, whatever. It's the nature of good business. All that are left are the employees of major enterprises or government as I mentioned before.
The fact that photography is flourishing shows there's an opportunity. How you go about getting that opportunity is up to the individual, the same as any other business or occupation. The bottom line is diversification and there's a quid in it for those who try. You just need the right formula. :)

[Steve Axford]

Agreed. There are opportunities everywhere. You just need to keep your eyes open to what people may be prepared to buy. A son of a friend of mine started taking videos of peoples Bar Mitzvah's (I had to look the spelling of that one up) and now he employs 3 people and makes a good living from it. Not something I would think of, but the opportunities are there. On the other hand, the guy that thinks he can make a living from photography just because he can take a good photograph, had better think again. Those days are gone.

[JM Tran]

yes its not easy being a one-trick pony these days is it? :):):)

[Steve Axford]

Well, you can be, but not in photography.