Photography as a career

[keahgirl8]

I'm just starting out in photography, but I thought I might eventully like to turn it into a career. I am definitely going to take some classes. I am interested to hear the experiences of others. Anyone care to share, whatever experience level, whatever type of job you may have? I'd love to hear about it!

[Furgus]

^^ You and I are in the same boat, so I would love to hear some thoughts as well. Prob will not quit my day job for awhile, but def want to get into something professional.

[safetymom]

I know lots of pro photographers. They don't make as much money with the photos as they do with teaching classes, taking people of photography trips. They usually are sponsored by camera companies, film, etc.

[wdwpluto]

Do you have any thoughts as to what type of photograph you'd like to do - wedding? portrait? photojournalism? commercial/advertising? sports? travel? etc.

[Furgus]

I know for me some local magazines or even newspapers to get started. I know there is not a lot of money in that, but it would be cool to see my name for the photo, and not in the police beat section :) J/K

[keahgirl8]

Do you have any thoughts as to what type of photograph you'd like to do - wedding? portrait? photojournalism? commercial/advertising? sports? travel? etc.

I think I'd really like to do travel photography.

[Kelly Grannell]

that's difficult to get in due to the sheer high cost for the people who hire you. The most I do is 4 times a year (for trip photography, that is)

[wdwpluto]

Kelly's right, travel photography is very difficult to break into. Costs are high, clients are few, and it's something that everyone wants to do. It's also very difficult to get a magazine to trust you with your first travel assignment, because if it doesn't work out, they're out a lot of money.

One thing worth noting though - doing travel photography is not like traveling for a vacation. A lot of people don't realize this (I'm generalizing, not saying anyone here on this thread) It's work, hard work, and I've seen photographers fail because they get caught up in enjoying themselves in a vacation way and forgetting about the job they came to do. That being said...

I have two thoughts for getting started. One is the travel section of your local newspaper. You could pitch story ideas to them of semi-local stuff (day trip type things). It might even be best if you take photos before you pitch the story. Shooting places you're familar with in a new and different way is always a challenge.

I know a photo editor who's been in the business for 30+ years that always asks photogs he wants to work with to see their local stuff. You tend to stop seeing the stuff you see every day and if you can push your creativity to see it in a new and exciting way, that extra bit of determination and creative energy, that's key (in my mind).

My second thought was travel stock photography. There's a great site www.alamy.com where you can post photos you've taken as available for sale. They take a % of each sale (read the terms & conditions carefully and decide for yourself if it's worthwhile to you). But if you can build a strong portfolio of travel iimages (again, could be based on local stuff) and make some money selling stock along the way, you'd be better off than a lot of folks. Plus if your stock images sell, you normally get a photo credit, which definitely legitimizes you in the eyes of photo buyers (again, my opinion).

But please, stay away from micropayment stock sites like www.istockphoto.com - you'd be really selling yourself short. They pay less than $1 to the photographer when a picture is licensed. With a site like Alamy, you could be making $50+ (which is still cheap) each time an image is licensed. Of course, you need stronger quality to get images placed with Alamy, but it's well worth it IMHO.

Hope that's helpful in some way. If you have any other questions, I'd be glad to try and answer them.

BTW - Classes are a great way to learn, no doubt (says someone w/ a bachelor's degree in photography) but get out there and shoot - experiment, play. You won't hit a home run all the time, but you'll learn a lot.

[Geoff_M]

From what I've seen a full-time photography job is getting closer and closer to a vow of poverty. This is due to a number of factors:
1) The equipment is easier to use. Auto-everything (though not perfect) has allowed the supply of available "photographers" to grow. Though not as good as a well trained photographer, for a lot of people, Uncle Todd shooting your wedding for next to nothing "will do" over hiring a real pro for a couple grand.
2) It's a new media world. "Dead tree" media is shedding jobs left and right as circulation keeps shrinking. More and more work is being outsourced to freelance "stringers" who will work for lower and lower wages. There's no shortage of people with the type of equipment mentioned in Point 1 who are willing to shoot a game or concert for a paper for only the needed access credential itself, let alone any actual pay. You can also expect the media outlet to try and do a "rights grab" and claim ownership of anything you take so you can't re-sell the images yourself.
3) There's been a lot of consolidation in the market as outlets like Getty have undercut the competition and locked out other competition.
4) Thanks to cut-rate studio operations like the ones at Sears, JC Penny, Wal-mart, etc. The studio business is a lot harder to get into nowadays too.

This isn't to save that it's impossible to made a good full time living in photography, but it's gotten a lot harder in the last 20 years.

[Kelly Grannell]

One thing worth noting though - doing travel photography is not like traveling for a vacation. A lot of people don't realize this (I'm generalizing, not saying anyone here on this thread) It's work, hard work, and I've seen photographers fail because they get caught up in enjoying themselves in a vacation way and forgetting about the job they came to do. That being said...


This is very true. The average number of hours per day for a trip-photography assignment (either for a magazine or for a family) is about 14 hours. Try doing that for weeks (my maximum so far was 2 weeks).

I'm usually dead for a month after the assignment.

[keahgirl8]

:sad2: Well, this is all very encouraging...

[Kelly Grannell]

whichever route you want to go. Photography is hardwork.

For concerts, I usually work for 12 hours straight from final rehearsal, dress rehearsals (with lighting cues and pyros if applicable), the concert itself and after-concert party. Then another 6 hours (continuing right after the photoshoot) to pick and choose the best shots

For weddings, I usually work 9 to 12 hours straight plus hours of selecting the photos and adding special effects.

Trip photography about 14 hours per day, usually a 1-week assignment. No photo selection necessary in my cases.

Fashion show, about 10 hours plus several hours to select the pictures.

[barrie]

I went to the Alamy site - they have tons of Disney photos on there. How are people able to sell their Disney photos? Barrie

[Kelly Grannell]

they are not supposed to, but there are so many art / photo galleries in Toronto that sell pictures / images of Disney and Disney seems to be oblivious to them. (I'm talking more than a handful of art / photo galleries in Toronto, not to mention outside Toronto.

So my point is that, people sell regardless. So far the most 'drastic' thing that Disney have done to one of the store is told them to not sell images of Disney. So for several weeks you can't find any WDW / DL images at that place... then they re-emerged.

Oh well.

[wdwpluto]

:sad2: Well, this is all very encouraging...

I hope you don't think I'm trying to be discouraging. I'm trying to be honest and realistic (In the interest of disclosure, I've been a photo editor at magazines since 1998. I prefer not to say where I currently work on a public board such as this one, but if you want, PM me.) I got my bachelors in photography and thought I'd be a commercial/advertising shooter. Competition is fierce and I decided to go another route - one with a steady paycheck. That's the other thing - assignment work can be feast or famine. I've given one guy 3 assignments in the past month and another none. Is one's photography better than the other? Nope, just different. Plus there are other financial and geographic factors involved.

Professional photography has gone from being lucrative to - as Geoff said - a vow of poverty. In the advent of digital, magazines feel they can pay less and less since the film & processing prices are effectively gone. They don't take into account the time it takes a photographer to process digital files/burn them to CD. So you have to do it for love, not money. It's also a lot more work and a lot less glamor than people thing.

As a photo editor, I think Getty is evil - they blow my budget every time with their high prices and unwillingness to negotiate. However, that means higher fees paid to the photographer in the end, so from that perspective, I support it. I don't know, however, how difficult it is to get them to accept you as a photographer/images. I know that with Alamy it's a lot easier to get accepted.

Again, I'm not trying to be discouraging, only realistic. :confused3

[wdwpluto]

I went to the Alamy site - they have tons of Disney photos on there. How are people able to sell their Disney photos? Barrie

I'm not familar with what restrictions Disney imposes - but here's my thoughts - if images are being sold for editoral use (magazines, newspapers, etc.) at a piddly fee, I don't think it's worth Disney's time to complain. After all, the images are generally used to give them good publicity. (Though, Disney's PR dept has a pretty darn good selection of images that editorial media can use for free.)

However, if a Disney image is sold for commercial use - ie. a t-shirt - which in theory will sell thousands of units and possibly garner a huge profit, then it may be in Disney's interest to care. After all, that could be seen as taking profit away from Disney. Just my 2 cents.

[Kelly Grannell]

(Though, Disney's PR dept has a pretty darn good selection of images that editorial media can use for free.)


Too bad none of them got transferred to either their 2005 Yearbook or Around the World with Disney photo books. :furious:

[0bli0]

i found myself a niche which works quite well for the last 4 years or so. this has let me pursue other opportunities of my choosing.

as Kelly has pointed out, be prepared to invest lots of time with no return for some time. my saturday sports events has me shooting from 6 to 10 hours, and then about 2 to 5 hours of post processing. at 'Gala Days', we print onsite. skateboard comps are also fairly long and printing is a must. paintball tournaments are two solid days of shooting (and several hours of post processing the first night). again here we print onsite - requiring an assistant.

for portraits, banquets, fashion events, balls, weddings, and trade shows, they also require many hours of shooting and lots of pre-event preparation, insurance, model releases, etc.

travel is probably one of the most difficult to do commercially. i travel every few weeks with quite a bit of overseas travel. i have done some specific shooting for an airline magazine, travel company brochures, and a food magazine. i've also sold some other shots which were not taken specifically for any purpose. as Geoff has pointed out, rights and license management can be very frustrating and generally leaves the photographer on the short end.

in any event, give it a go and most of all, have fun with it.

[Geoff_M]

As a photo editor, I think Getty is evil - they blow my budget every time with their high prices and unwillingness to negotiate. However, that means higher fees paid to the photographer in the end, so from that perspective, I support it.However, in the sports photography world Getty is often viewed as the "anti-Christ". Their model is to lock up exclusive photo deals such as the one with the NHL, NBA, and other sporting bodies that has the effect of restricting work for non-Getty photographers. I can assure you the photography world doesn't view Getty as the "photographer's friend".

Here's a quote from a memo Getty sent to NHL teams in order to try and get them to only use their services instead of locally contracted shooters: "at minimal cost, you get photography from many NHL arenas. You will have usage rights to this material forever, in perpetuity, without additional fee until the cows come home...and even longer. And the photographic history of your team will be yours to keep with no reservations and no way for a photographer to hold your images hostage." I like the part where they equate photographer copyrights with "hostage" taking.

[keahgirl8]

I appreciate everyone's information and honesty. I'm still in the beginning stages of this and am not sure if it is right for me. It is something that interests me. However, due to health reasons, I don't know if I can commit that kind of time to a job. I am still thinking about it, and I appreciate all of your input!

[wdwpluto]

However, in the sports photography world Getty is often viewed as the "anti-Christ". Their model is to lock up exclusive photo deals such as the one with the NHL, NBA, and other sporting bodies that has the effect of restricting work for non-Getty photographers. I can assure you the photography world doesn't view Getty as the "photographer's friend".

Here's a quote from a memo Getty sent to NHL teams in order to try and get them to only use their services instead of locally contracted shooters: "at minimal cost, you get photography from many NHL arenas. You will have usage rights to this material forever, in perpetuity, without additional fee until the cows come home...and even longer. And the photographic history of your team will be yours to keep with no reservations and no way for a photographer to hold your images hostage." I like the part where they equate photographer copyrights with "hostage" taking.

Yikes! Totally valid point Geoff. I've never looked at it from that end. (I primarily deal with their lifestyle material from a buyer point of view.)

All things being equal, I'd love to drop them as a vendor. But time and again, they turn up the best images for the job. It's a bad catch 22 :confused3

[boBQuincy]

NHL, F1, and other sports bodies restrict photographers without credentials to certain size lenses, presumably to help assure that their chosen photographers have exclusive access to the best photos.

One of the advantages a pro used to have in the film days was shooting with company film. Where an amateur would have to be concerned about the cost of so many exposures the pro could shoot plenty. Of course with digital that advantage is gone and we can even bracket without worrying about the cost.

To me one of the big differences between a pro and most advanced amateurs today is the pro *must* get the shot, while the amateur (and I proudly count myself in that group) can say "oh, I didn't like the light" or "it wasn't my type of subject" and move on.


boB

[dodukes]

Been reading the thread and it has provided useful information. I myself graduated with Bachelors in Film Production and Photography. It's tough to get in to the biz. I thought it would be easier. Needless to say I did not do photo right out of college (but im only mid twenties yet) so still plenty of time. I look often and decided there were certain things i was unwilling to do, (weddings) regardless of profit. I love sports and started with some of that, albeit very slow. This year I finally decided to (with some encouragment of a coworker) to start doing children's photography. (Of curse she wanted her kids pics and asked and thats how the ball got rolling) I dont own space so all work is outside in public areas (hence no studio costs). So far I have done a lot of my coworkers family with a lot of interest in upcoming christmas season for family portraits and xmas cards. I have to say that this is something that i had labeled before as i was not going to do cuz I mainly enjoyed outdoor photography and other "non human" things. But hey its a way to earn a buck cuz the other way wasnt working. You may want to find something you like and get it done this way. I actually find myself really enjoying this and the parents enjoy that is not another school, jcpenny studio shot. (no offense to those) But they like that its at the beach park, etc. This was just an example that is not so discouraging cuz pretty much you are not depending on anybody but yourself to get started and get promoted. Word of mouth is huge!!!

[Geoff_M]

NHL, F1, and other sports bodies restrict photographers without credentials to certain size lenses, presumably to help assure that their chosen photographers have exclusive access to the best photos.Actually, it's to do with unauthorized uses of player likenesses, team/league trademarked logos, etc. It's not to do other photographers any favors. The on-field media is legally and contractually (per the terms agreed to by the granting of the media credential) restricted in the way they may use the photos taken during the event. Normally, it's restricted to use in publications (called "editorial" use). I can't go out and start selling Danica Patrick posters (known as "commercial" use) or glossy 8x10's of her without landing in a lot of legal hot water with the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the Indy Racing League, Rahal Letterman Racing, her sponsors, and Danica herself. The only way to do this legally would be to obtain a legal license (read: "Pay big $$$ up front, and split the sales") to do so from the proper authorities (league, driver's association, sponsors, etc.).

The "media" usually behaves itself when it comes to issues like this (if caught you can usually kiss your future credentials "goodbye"), but "fans in the stands" are another matter. They signed no legal contract like the photographers on the field, and though legally bound by many of the same restrictions (like restrictions against commercial use of someone's likeness without consent), they are less inclinded to know about or stick to such restrictions. Fan's with "pro" equipment in the stands are a major source of the cheap unlicensed photos that you see being sold at sports collector shows, flea markets, eBay, etc. As a reaction to that, many venues restrict the type of equipment a ticket holder can carry into the venue.

[fitzperry]

Just to add another perspective, I have a friend who is a long-time professional photographer but has only been in this area for about 3 years. She has managed, in a relatively brief period of time, to position herself quite successfully as a very high end portrait photographer. She also does quite a bit of glitzy, fashion-type commercial work. The thing she is focusing on now that I find kind of interesting is high school senior pictures. Things have certainly changed since I was in high school a thousand years ago, and everyone had to go to the same portrait studio to have basically the same set of pictures taken. My friend says that she enjoys these shoots--most of the kids are surprisingly cooperative and fun to work with, and their parents are willing to shell out a fortune for the really cool and creative images she gets. There is also an endless stream of business.

[boBQuincy]

[QUOTE=Geoff_M]Actually, it's to do with unauthorized uses of player likenesses, team/league trademarked logos, etc.
The only way to do this legally would be to obtain a legal license (read: "Pay big $$$ up front, and split the sales") to do so from the proper authorities (league, driver's association, sponsors, etc.).QUOTE]

So the rule on lenses, etc. is more to insure that Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the Indy Racing League, Rahal Letterman Racing, sponsors, and drivers can keep amateurs (otherwise known as those who haven't paid the $$$) from getting good photographs.

If that trend continues (or is taken even further) it would certainly broaden the gap between the photos a pro can get vs an amateur.

[Geoff_M]

Fitzperry, You are correct that there are a lot of photographic success stories out there. However, I think the profession has become a lot like the desire to become a full-time professional actor... For every one that "makes it", there's a lot of others that try it and don't make it.

So the rule on lenses, etc. is more to insure that Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the Indy Racing League, Rahal Letterman Racing, sponsors, and drivers can keep amateurs (otherwise known as those who haven't paid the $$$) from getting good photographs.Yes, and no. It's "yes" mainly in the sense that they want to make it harder for the "pirates" to illegally commercially exploit their likenesses instead of preventing your average fan from getting a good photo as a keepsake for themselves. It's similar to the rules against bringing audio recording devices into concerts. The intent is to mainly stop the production and sale of "bootleg" concert recordings.

I get lots of great images and don't have to pay anyone anything. However, my usage is limited to editorial use (which is protected by law). If I want to commercially exploit a likeness, then I'd need the same licenses and releases to do so as any person in the stands. At least most venues allow you to bring in a camera. For most people, photos from these point and shoots are good enough keepsakes for them. But at Joe Louis Arena they aren't going to let me bring in my D2H with an 80-200 f2.8 because they don't want the chance that my stuff is going to pop up on eBay at $5 an 8x10 plus shipping and handling. It's a lot easier to control the problem at the source instead of trying to police it once the "cow's out of the barn".

[Furgus]

At the RBC Center in Raleigh, they let us bring in any camera we like. I was at game 7 and you can see some of the shots I took.
All shot with a Nikon D50, 7 rows up from the Ice. I used my 70-300 for most of these shots.

http://gavette.blogspot.com/

[Geoff_M]

Must be nice... At "The Joe", the limit is "no lens longer than 54mm". It's enforced even for things like practices that you may be invited to as part of being in the fan club. Must have been fun being at the SCF's. Thanks for beating the Oilers for us!!!! ;)

[Furgus]

It was awesome. I would have liked to play Detroit again, I really think we could have taken them this year :)

[fitzperry]

Fitzperry, You are correct that there are a lot of photographic success stories out there. However, I think the profession has become a lot like the desire to become a full-time professional actor... For every one that "makes it", there's a lot of others that try it and don't make it.

Oh, I don't doubt that it's a difficult business to break into successfully. In fact, my friend has a marketing degree, and although she is a very talented photographer, I think her sales skills and ability to evaluate the market are equally critical to her success. I also think that some people are attracted to photography as a profession because it just seems cool (not to suggest that the op fits into that category!), and they don't realize what hard work it can be on so many different levels--physical demands, difficult clients ("what do you mean, you can't make me look like Cindy Crawford?!!"), sacrificing personal time to photograph events, etc.

[Sonno]

I'm a cook by trade, and aspiring to open up a restaurant (soon I might add! :thumbsup2 ). Photography for me is more of a hobby and an outlet for creative expression... or but yet, something constructive to do with my free time ;)

If I ever do try to make money with photography, as in like a career or something; I've pretty well decided I would only do the "art gallery" thang. That and maybe set up a booth or two at a flea market or a photo expo or something, and have fun interacting with folks and kids and what have you, making fun little pics like this for $20-25 a pop:

http://www.mxoworld.net/testbb/junk/bottle3.jpg

(that's my son in the bottle by the way :teeth: )

To be honest, and this is my opinion, if it's an art, than let it be art. If it's good it'll sell, if it isn't it won't. But it's still art; you really can't put a schedule and/or a deadline on it. The only thing I'd ever want to aspire to be, as far as photography goes anyways, is to become "the" modern day Uelsmann (well, he is still alive but... you know what I mean...).

http://www.fwab.org/auction%202004/Group%202/Images/024%20Uelsmann.jpg

And that's about it. :goodvibes


EDIT: I wonder if there's a market for shooting families on their WDW vactions?? :banana:

[Kelly Grannell]

difficult clients ("what do you mean, you can't make me look like Cindy Crawford?!!")

:rotfl:

I actually encountered this waaaay too often! Took a pic, enlarged the pic to poster size, then the client says "why do I look so old in the picture?" (in the back of my mind I replied "because you ARE that old, you moron!").

Now I always use Kodak GEM Brush at 40% intensity. Never heard any stupid comment like that anymore.

[captaincrash]

I'm a cook by trade, and aspiring to open up a restaurant (soon I might add! :thumbsup2 ). Photography for me is more of a hobby and an outlet for creative expression... or but yet, something constructive to do with my free time ;)

If I ever do try to make money with photography, as in like a career or something; I've pretty well decided I would only do the "art gallery" thang. That and maybe set up a booth or two at a flea market or a photo expo or something, and have fun interacting with folks and kids and what have you, making fun little pics like this for $20-25 a pop:

http://www.mxoworld.net/testbb/junk/bottle3.jpg

(that's my son in the bottle by the way :teeth: )

To be honest, and this is my opinion, if it's an art, than let it be art. If it's good it'll sell, if it isn't it won't. But it's still art; you really can't put a schedule and/or a deadline on it. The only thing I'd ever want to aspire to be, as far as photography goes anyways, is to become "the" modern day Uelsmann (well, he is still alive but... you know what I mean...).

http://www.fwab.org/auction%202004/Group%202/Images/024%20Uelsmann.jpg

And that's about it. :goodvibes


EDIT: I wonder if there's a market for shooting families on their WDW vactions?? :banana:

Well stated from my POV...

I'm not looking to go into the Resturant business - as I am winding down from the finance industry after 15 years in it - and I am interested in photography as a passonate hobby. As such - I am prety low ont he learning curve in most respects and truly admire the creative results like your son in the bottle as well as the subtle refinements that are not obvious to the eye.

At this point I count myself among those who simply marvel at the results. My compliments!!! :thumbsup2

[fitzperry]

:rotfl:

I actually encountered this waaaay too often! Took a pic, enlarged the pic to poster size, then the client says "why do I look so old in the picture?" (in the back of my mind I replied "because you ARE that old, you moron!").

Now I always use Kodak GEM Brush at 40% intensity. Never heard any stupid comment like that anymore.

This reminds me of the time a couple of years ago that I glanced at a magazine in line at the grocery store and thought "wow, that model looks like a younger Meg Ryan." Then I looked again, and sure enough it was Meg Ryan. For cryin' out loud, the woman is in her 40's--why do they have to Photoshop her to look like she's 21? Then again, blown up to poster size, I might want to have a few years shaved off, and maybe a pound or two. ;)

[keahgirl8]

Oh, I don't doubt that it's a difficult business to break into successfully. In fact, my friend has a marketing degree, and although she is a very talented photographer, I think her sales skills and ability to evaluate the market are equally critical to her success. I also think that some people are attracted to photography as a profession because it just seems cool (not to suggest that the op fits into that category!), and they don't realize what hard work it can be on so many different levels--physical demands, difficult clients ("what do you mean, you can't make me look like Cindy Crawford?!!"), sacrificing personal time to photograph events, etc.


I didn't expect it to be easy. I just really enjoy it as a hobby and thought it sounded like a creative and fun career. I'm just kind of at a crossroads right now, and not wanting a 9 to 5 job. But that's just me...don't need to go into that! lol Anyway, thanks for all of the info!

[OCSurfCity]

I am a professional photographer having shot for the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, NCAA football (USC, UCLA, University of Hawaii) and Surfing. Some of my images have been in major publications.

But it is a dog eat dog world. The photography market is really tight as companies like Getty Images slowly takes our bread and butter away from us. Leaving me to Little League and youth sports photography as my bread and butter assignments.

I have over $40,000 tied up in my digital camera equipment but need to find a full time benefits paying position. This is why you probably seen a lot of my posts asking about Disneyland jobs. I have a BS and MBA degree in Business/Management.

[0bli0]

spot on. when you look at major events where you see dozens of big white primes and everyone is shooting 8 1/2 frames a second, you're lucky to offload any shots commercially. if you do, it's for relatively little and often without shooter's credit and you lose the license. kid's sport, on the otherhand, on a good day in the right suburbs, i can make $1200 from one shoot easy with additional revenue from enlargements/posters, etc. then there are team photos and the other work that i'm always contracted to do as a result of parent's happiness.

the other thing i do often is some freelance PJ. start submitting photos from various events around the community to your local small paper. they don't pay much but you get the publishing experience with credit.

sure, i'd love to have images in SI, Time, and NatGeo. i'll get there... and hey, if i don't, at least i have the Manly Daily, Good Taste, Thrasher, and ZooNooz :)