View Full Version : Who earns their livelihood photographing?
Prompted by a recent thread ( guess which one:D ) I thought I would see what percentage of respondents to a poll have photography as their sole source of income.
Yep, the poll is public, anyone and everyone will be able to see which way you voted.
Bubbleyboy
10-09-2010, 5:43pm
As a beginner I am spending money not making any , perhaps in the future I may sell some images but as for being paid to take photos for me this puts too uch pressure on and some of the fun factor may not be there . At this stage its only a hobie .
In the future I may learn how to make a dollar if it fits in with what I like to do or I happen to get that photo of "ELVIS".
Bubbleyboy
I'm not interested in making money but it has come my way. Not looking but if it's there, I'll take it.
its a hobby... but i chose popcorn ;)
Never was a fan of popcorn. Photography is a hobby to me, although I have made a few bucks out of it over the years I'm not interested in making a living out of it this late in life.
I voted for the term I find offensive
arthurking83
10-09-2010, 10:58pm
I voted for the term I find offensive
:lol:
I find it offensive too!
Andrew!.... in having proposed every single incorrect scenario for my current situation, I found myself in the awkward, slightly misleading and subsequently unfortunate position of having to choose a small(but insignificant) untruth, over abstinence(because y'know me, and voting is like a religion to me .... except for the political versions of course!)
.... so I'm probably going to end up being labeled a popcorn eating type now by the general population, whereas the truth is I can't stand the stuff.
Can you at least edit the poll and add gravy to the list... not as an added individual selection, but as an add-on to the popcorn option.
.... to make Popcorn ... -> Popcorn with Gravy.
At least with the gravy on it, I can mull over the gravy covered popcorn, and once the gravy has all been digested, I can then (thoughtfully)discard the popcorn piece.
putting popcorn in my mouth only to discard it immediately seems like a waste of energy!
ooops! it seems I've overstepped the Kiwi imposed 40 word limit.... again! :Doh:
:D
I voted for the term I find offensive
Steve, I'm sorry if you find the term offensive. I have never thought of it in a derogatory way in any occupation or field. I included the "quotation marks" around the term to indicate that it was being used light heartedly as it seems to have become a used and abused term elsewhere recently.
in having proposed every single incorrect scenario for my current situation,
Arthur, this is market research, you know, like the online surveys that suddenly rejects you after 3 questions because you don't fit the 40-50 yo male, live in the 3000 postcode and have an income between $200,000 and $500,000 pa.
Longshots
11-09-2010, 8:22am
Steve and I agree. While many dont see the term offensive, perhaps its worth changing Andrew to ensure that you have a response that doesnt get sidetracked ?
bigdazzler
11-09-2010, 8:46am
I dont find the term offensive. Its just a word (or two) I dont feel that it implies that one is useless and cannot make a good exposure to save their life or anything derogatory like that. I dunno, doesnt bother me. :confused013
I started taking photos because I enjoyed it. At some point I started getting a few offers for me to photograph for other people. (NB: Never ever my intention when I bought my entry level DSLR in late 2008. At that point I couldnt tell you what an "Aperture" was !! :crzy:) Over the next little while, and given the amount of money I was starting to spend on my equipment and related software etc., I started to think it wasnt a bad idea to try and make a little bit back to offset the outlay. So I accepted a Christening job for a friend of a friend. That led to a referral, and then that to another .. etc.
I also make a little bit of money from assisting on DSLR and Studio Lighting courses with a friend in Sydney who runs a well established Photography business. I have also second shot with him, and assisted on various jobs.
I dont advertise (other than my own private gallery type website) and I dont spend a single dollar on trying to make more money. I simply do what I choose to do, when and how I choose to do it. Its all a bonus for me, and thats the way I like it.
I have a good income, so I dont need to rely on making money from my hobby. If I do, Im grateful and do the best that I can do every time. So far, no complaints :)
Voted popcorn; but have earned the occasional $ ; but I don't chase it either
I spend far more than I am ever likely to make from it, so popcorn for me...
Scotty72
11-09-2010, 10:30am
Change the so-called 'offensive' term? That would be offensive.
What is happening to our sense of humour and Aussie slang?
I really do think that some people are very, VERY precious about protecting the image of photographers.
Scotty - A blackboard jockey / chalk monkey - Oh! I offended myself..:Doh::action:
Dan Cripps
11-09-2010, 11:20am
100% of my income is from photography.
gunna64
11-09-2010, 12:06pm
I voted popcorn - coz it's the only thing that gives me something tangible in return at the moment :D
flashpixx
11-09-2010, 1:11pm
Started out as a hobby, sold a few images to riders. It's taken off now and I write and photograph for a national bike mag. Still provide services to the club where I started for free however. Am a weekend warrior, but it takes up more and more of my time.... and i LOVE it :D
Steve Axford
11-09-2010, 1:21pm
I do earn some money from photography so I voted for that one, but I hardly fit the "weekend warrior" tag. My earnings usually comes when someone finds one of my photos on the internet and wants to use it. They then send me some money in exchange for a high res version. I have never tried very hard at the earnings thing and people usually tell me how much they will pay. Do I compete with the pros? I suppose so, but not many of them take the same sort of photos that I do. Why not? - because there's not a huge market, or maybe there is but there's lots of people like me who don't care too much about the money. Still, there's the occasional guy, like Steve Parish, who does manage to earn a decent living from it.
gcflora
11-09-2010, 2:51pm
I'm probably in the same boat at Steve. I do make money from my photos, but the majority of the income comes from specialised areas. I've sold plant photos for inclusion in several books and also maybe 4 times a year sell plant photos for a brochure or something to a local government or school or somebody. I regularly sell to a scientific journal, but I doubt I compete with pro photographers (it's a pretty niche market and I know the editor of the journal personally). It won't make me rich but it's paid for a lot of my gear, which I am happy with.
by the response full timers seem to get for being well... full time, and after having heard it all recently, racketeers, precious elitist bigshot price fixers who only care about the money, LoL - I think I have sold my soul to the Devil:angel7:
very, very interestingly though, its only from other photographers heh. or people who own cameras in some cases.
never heard that type of feedback from clients , family or friends.
oh well, lucky then, that I'm more than happy to keep doing this until well past the day photography businesses cease to exist because all the after hour's photographers have demanded we stop charging the outrageous prices we charge immediately because a new lower priced horse has ridden in to town. over and out on this subject.
Gremlin
11-09-2010, 8:26pm
15 years ago I did, not anymore, too old, too broken and I get too much enjoyment from doing what some might call silly figure pictures... Maybe again one day, just not today....
Off to raid the kids toys again ;)
Dan Cripps
11-09-2010, 8:28pm
The poll results explain the general attitude and vibe around here.
Steve Axford
11-09-2010, 8:45pm
I'd agree with that Zeke. Sometimes people here can kid themselves, but most of us a a bunch of amateurs who just like photography as a hobby. Taking good pictures is the main thing. If you are pro, taking good pictures must be secondary to keeping the customers satisfied.
I'm a part-timer
It's my soul income
I wonder what other interests have such a divide between hobbyists, PT income and FT income?
Taxi drivers? No
Software development? No
Musicians? No
Cooking? No
Artists (painting)? No
So what's different about photography? It seems to be uniquely affected by easy access to technology.
I wonder what other interests have such a divide between hobbyists, PT income and FT income?
Taxi drivers? No
Software development? No
Musicians? No
Cooking? No
Artists (painting)? No
So what's different about photography? It seems to be uniquely affected by easy access to technology.
Sex workers ?
I think musos must be close
Scotty72
11-09-2010, 9:45pm
I wonder what other interests have such a divide between hobbyists, PT income and FT income?
Taxi drivers? No
Software development? No
Musicians? No
Cooking? No
Artists (painting)? No
So what's different about photography? It seems to be uniquely affected by easy access to technology.
You are kidding, right?
Musicians are probably far MORE affected. Heaps get paid bugger all, they often need to supply their own expensive equipment and are constantly exploited by band comps (up to Australian Idle) who expect them to provide free entertainment, sign over their rights while the organizers of comps rake it in.
Being an ex cabbie, I know how little they make - they hand over the pay-in the pray they make enough to cover that and fuel before they make a cent.
Most cooks get paid nothing! Bizzare eg. ;)
Scotty
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@Scotty, Don't disagree, but you missed my point... I have muso friends who do low paid gigs and they don't bemoan the successful bands/artists.
It seems in photography there is some sort of acrimonious feeling.
Dan Cripps
11-09-2010, 10:02pm
It seems in photography there is some sort of acrimonious feeling.
I dare say it happens in all unregulated professions.
That is a very real issue in our industry.
What constitutes a professional? Anyone who declares themselves as such.
mikew09
11-09-2010, 10:40pm
Hmm, I voted pop corn, made a little cash of late but I'm still far to much in the amatuer class to make more serious money :-).
Not in it for money really but would be nice to make enough to cover the gear cost of my most loved interest.
Gremlin
11-09-2010, 10:43pm
I used to be involved with signmaking and that had a similar effect. I had top quality gear and high quality materials. Then there was the ppl with cheap vinyls and cutting gear that started to flood the market, all it took was a program ie coreldraw illustrator or the generic cutters program and some cheap quality vinyl and ppl were doing signs vehicle signs and charging ridiculous low prices for it. Quality was awful but the price buyers loved it. I stayed with using higher quality materials, using higher quality machines and proper cust service to install them. Two things ended me doing that. An influx of diyers not charging to sustain a business, most doing for pocket money, and a lung collapse that almost killed me. Once on my feet again, there was a I hate ot say influx of cheap operators producing cheap graphics. Even thou I had a superior product in terms of longevity and quality, I couldnt compete with the lowballers doing it to get the job and barely cover costs. My business model was around what I needed to run the business, phones, ute, materials, repl gear, computers, redundant systems staff/assistant hire, insurance, workcover, which none of the lowballers did. I ended up going back to my trade in another industry. Strangely enough after 3-4 months being unable to work, and still up to two years after I sold it, I was still getting calls, sorry we went with a cheaper guy his stuff was awful, can you come fix it and do it properly? By that time I had moved on....
So within that industry yeah I might call myself a professional, I know I had professional service and product and until the collapse had a sustainable business that kept me going, that was until I wasnt able to work.
Funny thing is the income protection insurance meeting was the wednesday AFTER I was ambulanced to hospital, damn timing!!!!
I think I made sense there....
Steve Axford
12-09-2010, 8:20am
I dare say it happens in all unregulated professions.
That is a very real issue in our industry.
What constitutes a professional? Anyone who declares themselves as such.
You are right - a professional is anyone who says he is. What other measure would you use? And how would you persuade others to use your measure?
I don't think it does happen in all unregulated industries. I think the difference is that photography used to be just the few (who could get the training and equipment) and now it is for everybody. It is that change that makes the difference. The old time pro is either losing business or having to reinvent himself. For musicians it has always been the same, so they don't complain in the same way.
p.s. I just read Gremlin's post, so maybe it does happen in other industries. Even so, there's little you can do about it, so you have to focus on what you can do about you.
Dan Cripps
12-09-2010, 8:32am
You are right - a professional is anyone who says he is. What other measure would you use? And how would you persuade others to use your measure?
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I would like to see some form of regulation. A governing body which issues licenses (like many trades and professions) and is empowered to assess (over a whole gamut of areas) who qualifies as a professional.
I don't think it does happen in all unregulated industries.
I think you'd be surprised.
I think the difference is that photography used to be just the few (who could get the training and equipment) and now it is for everybody. It is that change that makes the difference. The old time pro is either losing business or having to reinvent himself. For musicians it has always been the same, so they don't complain in the same way.
I honestly don't think that is at all true, to be honest. Photography has always had massive appeal and involvement, be it of commercial or leisure nature. I think the difference in the last 10 years has been the increase in number of people who are not content to operate their cameras within the scope of what once was a hobby.
p.s. I just read Gremlin's post, so maybe it does happen in other industries. Even so, there's little you can do about it, so you have to focus on what you can do about you.
I have never subscribed to the attitude that big, difficult tasks are better ignored.
Zeke, AIPP is at the moment the closest consumer brand stamp of being a professional....in that there are qualification factors (such as being FT) and there is peer review, branding, code of ethics etc. Im not sure you can really regulate quality in an artistic endeavour.
Dan Cripps
12-09-2010, 8:59am
Zeke, AIPP is at the moment the closest consumer brand stamp of being a professional....in that there are qualification factors (such as being FT) and there is peer review, branding, code of ethics etc. Im not sure you can really regulate quality in an artistic endeavour.
Yes, I'm a full accredited member.
There are many aspects of the business which could (and should) be regulated.
farmer_rob
12-09-2010, 9:09am
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I would like to see some form of regulation. A governing body which issues licenses (like many trades and professions) and is empowered to assess (over a whole gamut of areas) who qualifies as a professional...
Photography for the general public is a discretionary purchase and people aren't going to get physically hurt if it fails. I can't see government getting worked up enough to set up some form of licence system (such as exists for plumbers/builders etc.) and the state consumer affairs bodies already have sufficient power to manage the ripoff merchants (of which there are some in every field of business).
Other unregulated professions have managed to lever themselves up to have reasonable representative bodies for which membership is seen as a badge of professionalism/quality. But this needs to come from within the membership bodies in the profession, setting standards and marketing membership as meaningful. Expecting it to either come by government fiat or even public demand is just fantasy IMO.
...
I honestly don't think that is at all true, to be honest. Photography has always had massive appeal and involvement, be it of commercial or leisure nature. I think the difference in the last 10 years has been the increase in number of people who are not content to operate their cameras within the scope of what once was a hobby.
...
Don't underestimate the ease of doing things with photography that in the past were in the realm of specialist activity (ie the film era): Cropping, enlarging, printing, special effects etc. As well, the price of quality camera gear is lower in real terms, and more widely available. I've been a hobbyist photographer for 30+ years, but only in the past few years have I been able to do things like crop and enlarge my photos because I no longer need a darkroom and specialist skills.
Steve Axford
12-09-2010, 9:26am
Zeke, I don't think that government is going to get involved in regulating an industry that has little in the way of danger to the public. Even things like counselling is essentially unregulated with anyone able to put up a board and call themselves a counselor. Things like medicine and law are regulated for obvious reasons, but give me one good reason why photography should be?
Dan Cripps
12-09-2010, 9:39am
I don't think the art photography should ever be regulated.
Don't get me wrong.
I simply believe that the title of 'professional' should not be as easily accessed or utilised. As I said earlier, I don't have any real answers, just sharing my viewpoint.
Zeke, I don't think that government is going to get involved in regulating an industry that has little in the way of danger to the public. Even things like counselling is essentially unregulated with anyone able to put up a board and call themselves a counselor. Things like medicine and law are regulated for obvious reasons, but give me one good reason why photography should be?
You're right Steve, I know first hand that the federal government won't regulate any industry without first being nailed to a post and why should they? Regulation costs lots of money to do and significantly increases prices to the end user and generally is a disaster for everyone. Free marketing sorts itself out pretty quickly and as long as it's not a danger to individuals should be left that way. Most professional bodies (as far as regulation is concerned) are leeches.
Steve Axford
12-09-2010, 10:34am
Yep, RG, less regulation has been the trend ever since the trade guilds became all powerful back in the 17th century. (What is the world coming to when I find myself agreeing with RG all the time :) ) To quote Wikipedia "Despite its advantages for agricultural and artisan producers, the guild became a target of much criticism towards the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1800s. They were believed to oppose free trade and hinder technological innovation, technology transfer and business development. According to several accounts of this time, guilds became increasingly involved in simple territorial struggles against each other and against free practitioners of their arts"
That's still the perception of what happens if you give trades or professions too much power.
There are few professions that are truly regulated.
Medicine & law are the obvious ones.
But even then naturopathy, homeopathy etc. are much less regulated than modern medicine.
Dan Cripps
12-09-2010, 10:57am
There are few professions that are truly regulated.
Medicine & law are the obvious ones.
But even then naturopathy, homeopathy etc. are much less regulated than modern medicine.
That reminds me of this site:
How does homeopathy work? (http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/)
:lol:
Bear Dale
12-09-2010, 11:38am
Anyone remember the days before PADI when you could just go and buy whatever scuba gear your heart desired without any qualifications whatsoever?
Lots of people got seriously hurt and in some cases lost their lives.
Steve Axford
12-09-2010, 11:51am
Anyone remember the days before PADI when you could just go and buy whatever scuba gear your heart desired without any qualifications whatsoever?
Lots of people got seriously hurt and in some cases lost their lives.
It usually takes something like that to bring in new laws. Perhaps a law will come in when a lot of newly weds jump off a cliff in a mass protest at not getting decent wedding photos.
Longshots
12-09-2010, 12:19pm
Zeke, I don't think that government is going to get involved in regulating an industry that has little in the way of danger to the public. Even things like counselling is essentially unregulated with anyone able to put up a board and call themselves a counselor. Things like medicine and law are regulated for obvious reasons, but give me one good reason why photography should be?
I'm not sure if this helps. But some background information on this. About 11 years ago, there was a very big push for regulation.
In fact Queensland Goverment took it so seriously (after a couple of pros put their cause for concern to them officially) that they launched a major enquiry. In the cause for concern from the two who approached Qld Gov, there was a claim that there were literally tens of thousands of complaints against shonky or under performing photographers.
A "research paper" called the "Review of the Photographic Industry" was released to the public 21st September 2000 by the hen Minister of Fair Trading, Judy Spence MLA.
It made quite interesting reading to those, like me, who had severe doubts about the large numbers of complaints.
These are relevant, and I havent selected them to support my point. Just selected the pieces I feel to put the area into focus.
Let me quote one important (to me at least) section:
Without downplaying the importance to the people concerned in those casess, it is difficult to perceive any widespread consumer dissatisfaction across the industry.
The available objective information indicates a significant concern with a very small number of traders.
Here's another:
Of the 6,500 written complaints per year received by the Office of Fair Trading, on average only about 60 involve photographic services
They then give a list of 2 years of complaints and average the breakdown:
Taking these two years together, of the 119 complaints (2 years total),
46% concerned portraits
24% glamour portraits
14% wedding photographs
The most obvious point to emerge, however is that in both years a very high proportion of complaints were directed against a small number of traders (24 in each year), with one or two operators taking the brunt of complaints.
These figures need to be considered in context, on both the supply and demand sides. There are many hundreds of photographic businesses, and even more individual photographers, so the 24 traders against whom complaints were made represents a small proportion.
Some 21,000 weddings a year occur in Queensland, most of which would involve photographic services of some sort. The complaints level of below 10 in each year suggests that the overwhelming majority are satisfied with the photographic services.
The conclusion of the report was to offer various options of regulation, but concluded that there was no real need for it.
As past National Vice President of both AIPP, and ACMP and past Qld President of AIPP, and ACMP, the call for regulation comes and goes, but now is a far quieter call each time it comes around.
A bad job means dissapointed people. Its not life threatening. So I'm afraid that I would personally see no point in regulation other then to increase the amount of existing bureaucracy, when its not doing anything other then making the photographers life harder (ie permits for shooting in parks, and other places, etc, etc).
I'm, a self taught photographer. I've taught many people who've gone on to get a piece of paper that says they have a degree in photography - and I'm sorry to say that it doesnt mean that they're any better then someone without it.
The industry will continue to adapt, and it will survive. It will still go on with people doing the wrong thing - and sometimes they will be the hard nosed full time professional and others it will be the part timer, who has no insurance, no business registration, no real name to their website, and possibly not even their own photographs on that website - and its highly likely that both ends of the scale will have seriously shonky ethics. Regulating wont get rid of that element I'm afraid. And thats been proven by Government research (across the world) and associations attempts at doing the same. All I can say is thank god we live in a free world (well sort of), and a democracy, otherwise I would never have made it to being a full time professional, and I wouldnt want to rob anyone of that chance :)
To answer the poll....
I guess I'd be a weekend warrior.
During the week I'm a full time Mum. I have a little boy still at home so I cant shoot during the week. I shoot weekends and do my processing and other work on weekdays after the kids have gone to bed.
At this stage, I dont make a lot. I've only started charging earlier this year, so I'm still really setting yo my collection of props and equiptment.
Longshots
12-09-2010, 1:28pm
To answer the poll....
I guess I'd be a weekend warrior.
During the week I'm a full time Mum. I have a little boy still at home so I cant shoot during the week. I shoot weekends and do my processing and other work on weekdays after the kids have gone to bed.
At this stage, I dont make a lot. I've only started charging earlier this year, so I'm still really setting yo my collection of props and equiptment.
And for the record, I, like many pros who started the same way, would be only too happy to assist and guide you. So as I've offered to many people along he way, if you want some advice, send me a pm, or contact me.
Thanks heaps for that, I appreciate it :)
In my experience a lot of industries with licensing have licensing simply as a way of protecting the incomes of those already in the industry.
This may not of been the original aim, it may well of been to protect the consumer but unfortunately ends up protecting incomes of those supplying services.
Longshots
12-09-2010, 8:07pm
In my experience a lot of industries with licensing have licensing simply as a way of protecting the incomes of those already in the industry.
This may not of been the original aim, it may well of been to protect the consumer but unfortunately ends up protecting incomes of those supplying services.
Completely and utterly agree with you :)
Gremlin
12-09-2010, 10:59pm
wasnt the licencing also so the insurance companies knew who they could blame an proceed with recovery action against?
Although I can see the valid argument in regulation... the cost of going down this path would be monstrous.
When you consider the things which would need to be developed like industry legislation PLUS development or amendment of industry specific safety legislation, codes of practice, australian standards, etc etc....
Then think about the insurance aspect and the impact on businesses, in a regulated industry premiums would rise enormously to reflect consequences asssociated with non-compliance to the items I described earlier. Then you have the cost of building & implementing a regulatory authority to regulate the industry. And this is only scratching the surface!
Although this would have the effect that Pro's undoubtedly urge for... is the cost to the tax payer really feasible? I'd say no way...
Although this would have the effect that Pro's undoubtedly urge for... is the cost to the tax payer really feasible? I'd say no way...
Why would Pro's want regulation? Regulation is designed to protect the weak and unfortunate and I'm sure this doesn't embrace photography.
Why would Pro's want regulation? Regulation is designed to protect the weak and unfortunate and I'm sure this doesn't embrace photography.
I didn't say Pro's WANT regulation, I said I think it would have a desirable effect from the Pro's perspective... whether they see that or not is a different thing altogether. I may be alone in my view here... but thinking long term I disagree with you.
Regulation significantly increases the risks associated with operating within an industry. It's my honest opinion that in the long term, it would have the same effect that it had on industries like plumbing etc. By increasing the risks, you drive up the cost of operating. Driving up the cost of operating pushes out the illegitimate operators to a degree. But more importantly it also increases the risk to client's when they hire illegitimate operators, as insurance becomes a big factor to the consumer.... for example, I know I can get someone to come and re-wire my house for half the price of a registered electrician. But when I consider that if something goes wrong, he has no insurance to cover my house being re-built when it burns down.... all of a sudden, I'm preferring to pay the full price for a 'Proper' electrician.
Longshots
14-09-2010, 2:09pm
Although this would have the effect that Pro's undoubtedly urge for... is the cost to the tax payer really feasible? I'd say no way...
I thought by posting some actual facts and figures that it would temper wild assumptions - clearly not.
Where is this urging by Pro's you speak of ? Clearly not in my world.
My point is, that it brings the supply & demand levels back to a more healthy level to the benefit of the Pro... I for one would not like to see this happen, I'm just saying that I believe this would be the result of regulating the industry.
Where is this urging by Pro's you speak of ? Clearly not in my world.
Poor choice of words on my part - the intended point is that the end result of regulation IMO would wash out alot of weekend warrior competition for Pro's. And again, I'm not claiming to be right... just putting an opinion out there!
Longshots
14-09-2010, 2:21pm
Fair enough. I wont pretend to think that there isnt a group out there who want regulation. I just tend to feel it would be entirely counter productive for all of the reasons you mentioned. Which is what Qld Gov concluded after their "research paper" into the industry.
Fair enough. I wont pretend to think that there isnt a group out there who want regulation. I just tend to feel it would be entirely counter productive for all of the reasons you mentioned. Which is what Qld Gov concluded after their "research paper" into the industry.
Agreed - as mentioned in my first reply I don't want to see regulation either, it would make my transition to Pro much harder! But I'm just looking at it from both angles though, the effect IMO would be beneficial... the resources and funding required for implementation outways the benefits entirely :) Catch 22.
Can we all agree on a few fundamental things :?
1/ No one wants regulation
2/ Everyone wants fairer prices
3/ No one is particularly worried about part time vs full time - it's about the approach and the customer
yeah !!!
Can we all agree on a few fundamental things :?
1/ No one wants regulation
2/ Everyone wants fairer prices
3/ No one is particularly worried about part time vs full time - it's about the approach and the customer
yeah !!!
Of course we all agree... but can we all dance around it and confuse each other a little more before we wrap this up? :p
Regarding industry regulation, it'd be anti-competitive, and would be very unlikely to benefit the consumer. Given the compliance and administrative burden of implementing it, it would only serve to drive prices up, at a net cost to the community as a whole.
Bad, bad, bad in terms of economics, and I can't imagine that any government would attempt to introduce such a scheme (it'd be contrary to the National Competition Agreements, for a start).
But I think we're all in furious agreement, as noted by Kiwi.
At this stage, I'm not interested in the income side of things. The moment photography becomes a chore, I'll give it up. Happy to sell a few shoots along the way though I don't actively seek out business, so not a weekend warrior in that respect.
Bear Dale
15-09-2010, 7:29am
It would be interesting to know anonymously what the average professional photographer makes per year.
Thanks for the coffee on the keyboard Jim. :D
I think your post may have read a little better as
"It would be interesting to know anonymously what the average income per year of professional photographers is."
For surely there is no such thing as an average professional photographer, is there?:lol:
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:44am
Here's some info:
http://joboutlook.gov.au/Pages/occupation.aspx?code=2113&search=alpha&Tab=prospects
But here is the best ever breakdown and explanation of costs and income for photographers I've ever read - HIGHLY recommend that this is placed by a MOD in resources:
http://www.ayton.id.au/gary/photo/photo_econ.htm
PLEASE go to that link and read it - its amazingly accurate.
Ok the alarming stats that the last survey (government survey) I recall is the average income (thats INCOME) is depressingly low on average - with obvious smaller percentages on the high and low end percentages - and I believe that average income was just $37,000
Bear Dale
15-09-2010, 7:45am
Thanks for the coffee on the keyboard Jim. :D
I think your post may have read a little better as
"It would be interesting to know anonymously what the average income per year of professional photographers is."
For surely there is no such thing as an average professional photographer, is there?:lol:
L O L
I'll go with your question :D
Bear Dale
15-09-2010, 7:52am
William would those figures be for full time professionals or would there be a percentage of part timers in that?
Longshots
15-09-2010, 8:00am
Apparently FT's only
Which is even more depressing
Longshots
15-09-2010, 8:28am
Although this is a UK based survey, and from 2005 - just have a look at page 3 of this fairly indepth insight into the "Creative Industries" in the UK
As an ex-pom myself, the figures are very much inline with Australian findings. The UK Pound is very roughly 1 = 2 A$.
Would help if I gave you the link ! :
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/12166/1/beyond_creative_industries_report_NESTA.pdf
terry.langham
15-09-2010, 9:10am
I don't directly earn an income from photography, however I am learning that as our website generates more sales, quality photos are essential. Mostly they portray a more 'professional' business compared to sites containing poor quality photography.
Ok the alarming stats that the last survey (government survey) I recall is the average income (thats INCOME) is depressingly low on average - with obvious smaller percentages on the high and low end percentages - and I believe that average income was just $37,000
I dare say that cars, computers and photographic equipment aren't included in the incomes of a lot of self employed photographers, as they would be put through the business as a business expense. That would push their income up by a fair bit and make the figure slightly less depressing.
Bear Dale
15-09-2010, 5:57pm
Doesn't look like it's a "Get Rich Quick" scheme.
But, but, they charge such exhorbitant fees ?????
Bear Dale
17-09-2010, 2:12pm
But, but, they charge such exhorbitant fees ?????
Yes.......but only the professionals.
Here's some info:
http://joboutlook.gov.au/Pages/occupation.aspx?code=2113&search=alpha&Tab=prospects
But here is the best ever breakdown and explanation of costs and income for photographers I've ever read - HIGHLY recommend that this is placed by a MOD in resources:
http://www.ayton.id.au/gary/photo/photo_econ.htm
PLEASE go to that link and read it - its amazingly accurate.
Ok the alarming stats that the last survey (government survey) I recall is the average income (thats INCOME) is depressingly low on average - with obvious smaller percentages on the high and low end percentages - and I believe that average income was just $37,000
William, I would seriously challenge your interpretation of all three reports. One report is written by an amateur hoping to get into the industry and is so narrow it really doesn't represent any part of the photographic industry at all. The second report was done in 2001 with some updates in 2005 which essentially is a decade old and almost pre-digital. The third report is in fact quite good and explains high rate of unemployment but at the same time indicates solid industry growth.
The UK salary component averages UK29,000 pounds which is roughly $70,000 pa. and this is based on an employed person. It is well known that self employment includes write-offs, tax breaks and other benefits averages nationally an income almost twice that of an employed person.
Of most interest is the forecast for industry growth which rates for photography a 9 out of 10 across all industries.
There's plenty of scope for work in the photographic industry but what I think these reports point out very clearly is that photographic skills are less relevant than business and people skills. But we knew that anyway.
geoffsta
17-09-2010, 2:47pm
I'm in it because I enjoy it, and I get to meet some great people with simular interests.
Xenedis
17-09-2010, 2:48pm
Change the so-called 'offensive' term? That would be offensive.
More offensive than the supposed offensive term itself is the implication that the offensive term is a lesser form of photography than any other -- one deserving of derision.
Being a 'weekend warrior' is perfectly valid in my book. I've seen images from weekend warriors that are far better than the images produced by some people who refer to themselves as professional photographers.
For me, photography is a hobby, and one about which I'm passionate.
My theory is that turning it into work would kill it. I shoot on my own terms and for my own enjoyment, and having to shoot subject matter or styles that don't appeal to me is, well, unappealing.
I have sold images, and I have done commercial work, but I'm not looking at turning a passionate hobby into a day job. A little bit of money here and there is always nice, but it would take a hell of a lot to come even remotely within cooee of getting back the money I've invested in gear over the years.
At the end of the day, whether you're a weekend warrior, an in-demand professional, or anywhere in between, photography should be whatever it means to you, and on your terms.
That's how it works for me.
Xenedis
17-09-2010, 2:55pm
For surely there is no such thing as an average professional photographer, is there?:lol:
Of course, you said that in jest, but sadly there are plenty of people calling themselves professional photographers, whose work is not even of a sufficient quality to be called 'average'.
Let's just hope we never run into any of them!
But Xenedis, if you marry your passionate hobby with your passionate employment you reach utopia which is only achieved by two or three percent of working human beings. It's a lovely place to be waking up each morning and doing exactly what you want and getting paid good money. It beats working at a job that you don't really like at a place you don't want to be which is most of the workforce. I've been there. :)
Of course, you said that in jest, but sadly there are plenty of people calling themselves professional photographers, whose work is not even of a sufficient quality to be called 'average'.
Let's just hope we never run into any of them!
There's no such thing as average, only wealthy or poor. Quality of the photography doesn't even enter the equation.
If I get paid $5k for a picture that someone else thinks is lousy it doesn't matter a squat. The customers happy. That's the reality, third party opinions don't count.
Xenedis
17-09-2010, 3:14pm
But Xenedis, if you marry your passionate hobby with your passionate employment you reach utopia which is only achieved by two or three percent of working human beings. It's a lovely place to be waking up each morning and doing exactly what you want and getting paid good money.
I bet, but given the stats, most of us won't experience that. I'm an eternal realist. :-)
Xenedis
17-09-2010, 3:15pm
There's no such thing as average, only wealthy or poor. Quality of the photography doesn't even enter the equation.
Ah, for me it does.
I wouldn't employ a photographer whose work did not meet a certain standard.
If someone else would pay big bucks to a very ordinary (or even bad) photographer (and by bad, I mean image quality, not business acumen), then that's not my problem. :-)
I bet, but given the stats, most of us won't experience that. I'm an eternal realist. :-)
Ah! you've been married too long. :rolleyes:
Longshots
17-09-2010, 3:34pm
William, I would seriously challenge your interpretation of all three reports. One report is written by an amateur hoping to get into the industry and is so narrow it really doesn't represent any part of the photographic industry at all. The second report was done in 2001 with some updates in 2005 which essentially is a decade old and almost pre-digital. The third report is in fact quite good and explains high rate of unemployment but at the same time indicates solid industry growth.
The UK salary component averages UK29,000 pounds which is roughly $70,000 pa. and this is based on an employed person. It is well known that self employment includes write-offs, tax breaks and other benefits averages nationally an income almost twice that of an employed person.
Of most interest is the forecast for industry growth which rates for photography a 9 out of 10 across all industries.
There's plenty of scope for work in the photographic industry but what I think these reports point out very clearly is that photographic skills are less relevant than business and people skills. But we knew that anyway.
I posted two reports - without interpretations - where did you read an "intepretation" ? I tried to purposefully only refer directly to the actual figures.
As to the other piece, the "amateur", wrote a very good economics of photography, which I'd maintain is well worth reading as I believe its highly accurate. I have seen similar breakdown of costs produced by professionals, and by AIPP, and I can absolutely assure you that they're all pretty spot on.
Redgum you would appear to be constantly inferring by your wording of your responses to me that I'm saying that there isnt plenty of opportunities out there - which I'm not. I'm not saying that, and I never have. What I find myself answering over and over again is the question from those who want to go full time - and thats what I referred to when I posted the 2 most recent government produced reports. Sure neither of them are particularly recent. But with the introduction of digital, the situation hasnt got any better with that average income of $37,000 being sourced from AIPP's own survey in 2008.
And btw as an ex pom, I tend to need to know exactly what the pound to aussie dollar exchange rate is and I'm not at all sure where you get this from:
The UK salary component averages UK29,000 pounds which is roughly $70,000 pa. and this is based on an employed person.
I'm afraid that the exchange rate you're referring to was the one I was unfortunate enough to be saddled with last time I visited the UK @ approx 41 cents to the £, which was 5 years ago.
With the conversion rate right now in the region of 59.998 cents to the £
Today's conversion rates £29,000 = $48,172.49
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=29000&From=GBP&To=AUD&image.x=63&image.y=16&image=Submit
Live rates at 2010.09.17 05:16:01 UTC
29,000.00 GBP = 48,172.49 AUD
I've also never doubted industry growth - almost everyone agrees that the industry is growing - hugely. Thats the worrying part. What isnt in the scope of any of these reports is the Market.
While people are finding it easier and easier to get started, many consumers of the product are simply not in the market any longer, as they have gone out and bought their own camera. So yes the industry is growing and the market is, in the eyes of not just photographers, but ad agencies, graphic designers, publishers, etc etc, is most definitely shrinking.
What is personally important to me is the opportunity to open a few people's eyes to understand what is involved, as others did for me many decades ago. Its enabling those that enter the industry to comprehend what costs are involved, because just like any new business, most dont survive the first two years. And yes I agree with your message and have always suggested that being able to multi-skill is hugely important.
Bless your heart but statistics are all hypothetical. We all know over 90% of businesses fail in the first two years regardless of industry so 90% of statistics are negative.
People wanting to start a business of any sort need to focus only on the 10% who succeed and who have survived the initial two years. Listen to people that have been in the business for the longest time not amateurs who have written an hypothetical paper.
In my opinion the same goes for so called professional bodies. In most cases the people who are running these bodies have had little success in business and that's why they are running such organisations (there are exceptions).
Extrapolating that point, if the average income of photographers is $37,000 pa and 90% fail it simply means that the 10% who survive and prosper are making bloody good incomes. And that's a fact.
So, how do you earn a livelihood from photography? Go and find some of those 10%, seek their advice and make your decision on those facts. If you find that some of your skills are not up to scratch either learn them or hire them. Either way you will succeed. If you can't learn or hire them move to another occupation. But for God's sake don't be misled by negativity, false barriers or statistics.
bigdazzler
18-09-2010, 7:33am
Listening to RG and LS go at it is like watching the Ashes :pirtongue: :D
Listening to RG and LS go at it is like watching the Ashes :pirtongue: :D
Yeah! And we can't let the Poms win again. :pirskull:
Steve Axford
18-09-2010, 8:56am
Bless your heart but statistics are all hypothetical.
Mmmm. So all those things that we have learnt from statistics are just hypothetical? Like mesothelioma from asbestos, or lung cancer from smoking, or quantum mechanics and the atom bomb? All just hypothetical? I hope nobody drops a hypothetical on me.
Redgum
18-09-2010, 10:54am
Good one, Steve, they're facts not statistics. You're not a pom, are you? :D
And we don't learn anything from statistics. We still drop bombs and we still suffer lung cancer.:umm:
Longshots
18-09-2010, 11:07am
Listening to RG and LS go at it is like watching the Ashes :pirtongue: :D
Lets get back to the issue of Who earns their livelihood from photography.
Antagonistic comments arent useful, and I mentioned my original place of birth in relation to the issue of the correct currency exchange rate, not to suggest that its ok to turn this into a them and us debate.
The facts, are that I posted two government produced reports on the state of the industry. I'd welcome reading some more facts on the actual issue. Yes the UK report, did state that the industry was increasing, which I've already said. The issue is, as I asked (left unanswered) is the market or demand increasing in the same manner ?
Redgum
18-09-2010, 11:48am
I'm out on a doco shoot at the moment but let's not get too wound up.
I've taken Darren and Steve's comments in the humour they were delivered.
I don't think anything we say here will cause major monumental change to the industry. :)
bigdazzler
18-09-2010, 1:08pm
oops .. double post (somehow ??)
bigdazzler
18-09-2010, 1:09pm
Lets get back to the issue of Who earns their livelihood from photography.
Antagonistic comments arent useful, and I mentioned my original place of birth in relation to the issue of the correct currency exchange rate, not to suggest that its ok to turn this into a them and us debate.
oh please .. it was a joke. *I cant find the rolly eyes icon today amongst the pirate stuff but feel its appropriate*
I've taken Darren and Steve's comments in the humour they were delivered.
Glad someone did .. :) I thought the cheesy grin would have been a dead giveaway. Oh well.
Please .. continue.
Longshots
18-09-2010, 2:56pm
oh please .. it was a joke. *I cant find the rolly eyes icon today amongst the pirate stuff but feel its appropriate*
Glad someone did .. :) I thought the cheesy grin would have been a dead giveaway. Oh well.
Please .. continue.
For the record I wasnt referring to anything you said - rolling of eyes not required :)
bigdazzler
18-09-2010, 3:43pm
Sometimes I think it gets a little too serious in this forum. Was just trying to lighten the mood a little is all :D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sometimes I think it gets a little too serious in this forum. Was just trying to lighten the mood a little is all :D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good one Dazza...tell a joke or something...:pirlaugh2:
Xenedis
18-09-2010, 3:49pm
Sometimes I think it gets a little too serious in this forum. Was just trying to lighten the mood a little is all :D
Taking the mickey is very serious business. :-)
Taking the mickey is very serious business. :-)
Now we're into cartoons? :cow: (Couldn't find a mouse).
Must be a policy on this somewhere? Maybe a statistic?
bigdazzler
19-09-2010, 1:31pm
Good one Dazza...tell a joke or something...:pirlaugh2:
OK ...
Well ...
A pom walked into a photography forum ... :pirtongue::pirtongue:
(Just joking William :):):))
I take my shots for fun and enjoyment. I love nothing more than when I post a shot on a forum and then people say nice things to me. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I've sold a few shots and even had my mug used in an advertising campaign overseas and these days I'm freelancing for a national mag too but I love driving my semi trailer so for now I'll stick to that. One of the reasons I love photography is that it can take you in so many directions. I've been into portraits for some time now (mostly selfy's) but I'm looking at maybe trying out some land and seascapes soon.
Mick.
farquar
22-11-2010, 11:05pm
I found it quite funny to see such an active photography "Business Forum" with only 8% of participants deriving 100% of their income in the industry... so I signed up today.
Cool face. :cool:
Well, some would argue that if you derive any income from photography at all, or even aspire to, then you are in the business of photography. Ft/Pt is just the amount of time applied ?
ricktas
23-11-2010, 6:32am
I found it quite funny to see such an active photography "Business Forum" with only 8% of participants deriving 100% of their income in the industry... so I signed up today.
Cool face. :cool:
funny maybe, or perhaps a reflection of the industry? There are a lot of part-time photographers out there, including many who used to be full-time. The industry has been undergoing massive changes in the last few years, and more will come. Full-time pro's are becoming rarer, so maybe the poll here is just reflecting that which is occurring in the business world. Part-Time does not mean less skilled!
funny maybe, or perhaps a reflection of the industry? There are a lot of part-time photographers out there, including many who used to be full-time. The industry has been undergoing massive changes in the last few years, and more will come. Full-time pro's are becoming rarer, so maybe the poll here is just reflecting that which is occurring in the business world. Part-Time does not mean less skilled!
If I can just add to Rick's quote? If you look outside the square it's not just photography that's changing. Just look at your own occupation and reflect on what's happened over the last decade. In most cases things have changed fairly dramatically. Even IT is so different today than 10 years ago. Work is no longer 9 to 5 nor do we tend to do the same thing all day and our work responsibilities include many more tasks often not related to what we did originally.
So many of the so called full time photographers are far more diverse, technology allows that. Many are getting into graphics work, printing even public relations because a task that took days now only takes hours (think of sending digital stills to a client). Once you had to do the job, process and print, record and mail. Now you simply attach to an email and more than likely the job's done in a day instead of a week.
Once I use to do a gig for a newspaper, go out and shoot, come back and process and my day was done. Now I do the same thing plus write the story, distribute online and publish all within hours. I'm still a photographer doing the same work plus more in quicker time which makes my job look quite different.
I think that as a photographer you need to get use to changes, adopt additional skills (like above). Like Rick said, it won't ever be the same and I doubt if the role of the traditional photographer will ever return in the same form. Full time photography now includes a lot of additional tasks that 10 years ago simply didn't exist in the job plan. It's really the traditionalists that will suffer somewhat from lack of work in the future.
Dan Cripps
23-11-2010, 12:15pm
Part-Time does not mean less skilled!
No, not all the time. In many cases it definitely does, though.
Some photographers are less skilled at maintaining a full time career.
ricktas
23-11-2010, 12:27pm
No, not all the time. In many cases it definitely does, though.
Some photographers are less skilled at maintaining a full time career.
and like all industries, people choose to work part-time for a variety of reasons, mostly unrelated to actual work. I now only work 4 days a week, yes I could work 5, but I don't want to, and don't need to, and it has nothing to do with my skill levels at all.
Dan Cripps
23-11-2010, 12:55pm
and like all industries, people choose to work part-time for a variety of reasons, mostly unrelated to actual work. I now only work 4 days a week, yes I could work 5, but I don't want to, and don't need to, and it has nothing to do with my skill levels at all.
Good to hear you've found a good work life balance that works for you, Rick. I'm a massive advocate for that.
There are obviously exceptions to any rule, but I'd suggest that the vast majority of photographers who have moved from full time to part time in the last decade have not done so by choice, but by necessity. In most cases I would also suggest that the underlying reason was their lack of developed business skills which they could fall back on when talent wasn't enough to carry them along.
Longshots
23-11-2010, 1:26pm
Contrary to major assumptions by a very small minority, I personally have had, probably one of the most diverse beginnings in photography, than many of the large number of photographers that I've had the pleasure of meeting over the past few decades.
Quite simply,I've yet to meet one who hasnt had their fingers in many pies, in various multiple "careers". By the time I was leaving the UK to move to Oz, I was running myself extremely thin, by maintaining a variety of co careers - some of them related to photography, and some of them, not related.
I describe myself as selling my work for 35 years. And yet I had a main source of income from a single alternative career, which as that income was the largest percentage of my total income, then I would not have described myself as a full time photographer. It was only really about 28-30 years ago, that my largest income stream, became the more dominant of the overall total. Even though working as a freelance producer, a performer, a marketing/sponsorship consultant, it was eventually my photography that was dominating my income. And it was also dominating my largest expenditure. And moving to Australia provoked a concentration of goals, and there was also a lessening of making deals in other careers. So for the last 20 years, I would definitely consider and describe myself, as many others do, as a full time photographer.
Now saying that, I'm not sure why, some here consider themselves to be able to suggest or imply that full time photographers do not, or have not diversified into connecting or related areas to photography. My personal opinion is that they dont know or havent met the type of photographers I've met over the years. I'm not saying that their advice isnt absolutely spot on, because it is. I've just never met a so called complacent
But in many cases - its a case of preaching to the converted. Anyone who has remained in the photographic business over the last decade, will be able to, and has throughout their time in the market, been forced to diversify. So assuming that many dont is simply not being aware of the actualities of what happens.
True, there has never been a time, where diversification isnt a necessity. But its a bit like being a Servo, there gets a point where the full time business of selling petrol is overtaken by the necessity of all the other products sold at the servo, and then eventually the full time servo - where the primary function is selling fuel, becomes a secondary function (part time) to sell fuel.
I thought the observation by Farquar that only 8.91% was not just funny, I thought it was enlightening - more so because 27.72 % said they werent interested in earning income from photography (so there its interesting to highlight that this is the "Business Forum"), and equally another 31.68 % had responded with the, what I perceive, rightly or wrongly as being disinterested in the poll and its relation to income by selecting the answer "Popcorn". :)
My personal opinion is that anyone photographers still do what they've been doing ten or 20 years ago - we capture, by a fairly straight forward process, a view, which we can manipulate, prior, during, and after on a form of media. Whats changed is what media we capture that on. :Doh:
Whats also changed is how much of the mystique has been simplified or automated; and ultimately that's resulted in a lowering of the perceived value.
Just my thoughts :beer_mug:
darkbhudda
13-12-2010, 1:34pm
I thought the observation by Farquar that only 8.91% was not just funny, I thought it was enlightening - more so because 27.72 % said they werent interested in earning income from photography (so there its interesting to highlight that this is the "Business Forum"), and equally another 31.68 % had responded with the, what I perceive, rightly or wrongly as being disinterested in the poll and its relation to income by selecting the answer "Popcorn". :)
The Popcorn people could also include those interested in deriving an income from photography but aren't currently doing so.
ricktas
14-12-2010, 6:24am
I am not to sure what the Poll results reflect. Ok this is a photography forum, but the AIPP website could run a poll, and the results would probably be completely different (I'm sure popcorn would be a rather low vote count on the AIPP website). I also guess that if one was run on photobucket or flickr etc, the results would be different again. For me, all this poll does is tell us a bit about the members of AP, nothing more.
Scotty72
09-01-2011, 11:50am
I am not to sure what the Poll results reflect. Ok this is a photography forum, but the AIPP website could run a poll, and the results would probably be completely different (I'm sure popcorn would be a rather low vote count on the AIPP website). I also guess that if one was run on photobucket or flickr etc, the results would be different again. For me, all this poll does is tell us a bit about the members of AP, nothing more.
No, it tells a bit about the members of AP WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE :D
The Popcorn people could also include those interested in deriving an income from photography but aren't currently doing so.
Yep, that.
Interesting discussion. I did tend to think the percentages were not far off the mark for a photography forum in Aus though.
There is one definite outcome. Just over 92% of people on this forum don't have photography as their sole income. And if you were to set say, $5000 as an earning benchmark for weekend warriors you could pretty much say 92% don't earn any income from photography.
There is one definite outcome. Just over 92% of people on this forum don't have photography as their sole income. And if you were to set say, $5000 as an earning benchmark for weekend warriors you could pretty much say 92% don't earn any income from photography.
I'd say that'd be close to the mark also. I'm guessing there'd be quite a few who'd like to earn either PT or FT living out of it though.
CallumPhoto
10-01-2011, 11:42pm
I'm planning on making a career out of this, I can't see myself doing anything else. I love it too much, I'm still a student though. Over the past 2 months I've done like 4 paying jobs, which is actually most of my income. Yep, poor student. Biggest cliche ever!
Thanks for sharing that...looking at your website it's no lack of ability, beautiful work
Longshots
06-02-2011, 7:47pm
I left a $140K well paid job to give photography ago but in 8 months I only managed to secure 3 weddings, so decided to go back to work :). But after the 3rd wedding it picked up really quickly mainly because of SEO on Google and wedding directory listing.
I think I like it more as a hobby, once it becomes a job then you have to think about the business side which I'm not keen on.
Thanks for your comments Richard :)
Chris Michel
29-03-2011, 8:57pm
so who then actually lists photography as their main income / or sole income on their tax return... i guess this would be a true answer of who is or claims to be a full time photographer
steve munro
29-03-2011, 9:21pm
All my income comes from the moving image and I get none from the still image. But photography at 24 or 25 frames a second is still photography, right? :D I think we all secretly want to take photographs that someone else may one day want to buy and hang on their wall, rather than chase the daily's with another 1000 word shot. Do what you love and love what you do :D
Steve
JM Tran
29-03-2011, 9:22pm
so who then actually lists photography as their main income / or sole income on their tax return... i guess this would be a true answer of who is or claims to be a full time photographer
I did, for one.
jgknight
29-03-2011, 9:33pm
I started out my working life in professional photography for over twenty years. Then got out of it. Now, over forty years later, I take photos that make ME happy. If anyone else likes them, that is a bonus. I often get asked to take photos for people who are willing to pay but now days it just puts me under to much pressure to take stuff that THEY want. I'd rather do what I want and really enjoy it. No commercial work for me.
I voted popcorn, but would have ticked an option "it's a hobby, and I'm just starting out trying to see if i can sell images"
When i got into photography somewhat seriously 6 years ago, I would post surf images to a surf forum. Got an email out of the blue from someone wanting to by an image for a magazine. Was pretty stoked. My photography has now improved greatly (I hope), though the last 6 years I've not set up any kind of albums so no way to showcase my work, and no out of the blue requests for images. Now I've just started a wordpress travel photo blog for a long trip i'm on, and a few days ago starting linking the photos to a smugmug account to see if I can sell anything. Nothing yet, but early days.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.