How much do photographers make?

[jann1033]

i did read the "oil post" or should i say Thesis( just kidding mark) and my only comment is it's never just one thing. my local family owned garbage man went out of business , in part due to the cost of gas, in part due to the unemployment and therefore not being able to collect like he could,in part due to waste management ( a big company around here) getting bigger, maybe in part due to global warming, who knows for sure. my local family owned grocery went out of business when wallymart built next door( who i really try not to go to due to their tendency to do that) and now is owned by giant eagle in Pa, who dropped the double gas perks, homogenized the line of foods they carry( it was nice to get things like smiths hot dogs there instead of just ballpark) and basically ruined the store.( and wegman's is a great store btw).

what this has to do with photography is...same system applies. it's hard for a one person operation to compete anymore when i can go to target and get my kid's photo taken for free with a coupon. the photos may very well be not nearly as good as the one person guy takes but the average consumer just does not realize that and goes for the price...i see this with my husband's work all the time...he does faux finishes and literally has lost jobs to people who can not even finish the corners( a basic skill ) and instead leave them the color of the primer ...because their cost was $200 less. as much as people claim they want "quality" that translates " cheap" more often than not.

so i think it would be impossible to make an easy living at photography and very difficult to make a "good" living unless you have a unique style, skill and then have to grow a reputation to go with it...or be an expert at smooze, then you can leave out the skill and style and people will never notice and call you anyway cause their boss recommeded you and he must know

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Thank you Mark and yes, I did read your post. I know why prices are going up for barrels of oil, which leads to hire prices at the pump. But, it still doesn't mean that the oil companies have to make record profits off of it while everyone, including their shareholders suffer. My husband is in finance; when his customers hurt, so does he.

'nuff said, I'll get off my little soapbox

as to the topic at hand, sell your cameras and become stockholders in oil companies, you'll make more money

If it helps, look at the record profits of the oil companies in perspective. They also have record investments. When you look at them in a return on capital, it's not nearly so exciting.

To draw a parallel back to the photography business, let's say that you have the opportunity to invest in two different photography studios, each looking to raise $5,000. One studio already has $5,000 in capital, so you'll be getting half the company and its profits. The other already has $95,000 in capital, so you'll be getting 1/20 of the company and its profits. The $10,000 company has profits of $10,000 that year, earning you a fantastic 100% return on your capital. The other has $20,000 in profits, earning you a 20% return on your capital. It might sound more exciting to tell people about the $20,000 profit that the bigger company made, but you actually had a higher return on your capital with the company that made less.

Oil companies are in the same position. The capital investment to generate these large profits is enormous. The actual return on that capital (especially if you look at it over the long term where prices have been much lower), is not really that exciting. Yes, Exxon has set records for it's profits, but they're return on investment is pathetic compared to the real star companies like Walmart, Microsoft, Dell, Google, etc.

You needn't put up with high oil prices, though. Those obscene (as they've been called) profits are giving us an incentive to supply more energy for the future. There are ways to lower those profits, though. Some are being actively considered in Congress. Some want to increase taxes on oil companies. That would lower those profits, decrease incentive to invest, lower the supply of oil, and increase it's price. Some want to bring back price ceilings, which would lower the price of oil, which would decrease the incentive to find more and decrease the amount that could profitably be produce, so we would have shortages and gas lines. Others want to reneg on contracts the government made with the oil companies when prices were lower. Setting aside the ethics of that, doing so will increase the returns demanded by companies for future contracts with the US government, cutting the value of the untapped reserves that we haven't leased yet.

Everything in life has trade-offs. The Europeans have higher taxes on their energy and consequently use less of it and use it more efficiently. That's the trade-off they wanted to make. I'm not going to tell you which way we should do things here in the US. I just want to say that there are no free lunches. Few people spend their lives or risk their money in the oil field because it brings personal satisfaction. They are in it because they know that people want and need energy and that they can earn money by supplying it. The more profitable people think it is, the more they are willing to work and invest to get a share of those profits.

 

[alan]

This really is a fascinating thread, and I am enjoying reading it even though it has strayed a long way from its original topic.

It seems hard to imagine that energy prices are going to go down over the forseeable future. There are an awful lot of people in China and India whose energy use is increasing, and that energy has to be provided from somewhere. So until we find sensible alternative sources of supply, fossil fuels are going to be increasingly expensive.

So, it seems to me that it is a reasonable personal response to try to reduce my own energy consumption - as much as is convenient. So, when I last replaced my car I did think about buying a nice SUV, but instead went for an estate car. It carries as much, it's as comfortable, I lose the nice elevated driving position but I get over 45 miles to the (UK) gallon.

Everyone has to choose their own response - if there's one thing guaranteed to turn me against a cause it is the pressure groups who argue in its favour - but I don't believe that energy is going to get cheaper, and so I know that I am going to pay ever more attention to power consumption figures.

As for the other topic, of how hard it is to be an independent provider of goods or services, I absolutely agree. Time was when you could go somewhere new and see new and different things in the shops. No more. It's the same chain stores in every town across the country. Heck, last year I spent several weeks in Taiwan and spent a few weekends trying to find some nice but "different" clothes to take home to DW and the kids - there was nothing! Very disappointing.

regards,
/alan

 

[MICKEY88]

hmm unless I missed it no one has mentioned the most profitable area of photography, paparrazzi where else can you sell a photo for thousands of dollars, and the worse your subject looks the more you get paid...

 

[Master Mason]

I appreciate the sentiment, but given that none of the three have anything to do with Disney and/or photography and that all three inspire deep antipathy from some, I'll just leave them off. It was only meant to be temporary anyway; now is as good a time as any to remove it.

sorry I shouldn't have guess then But if I guessed right, I happen to think your right. Nuff said.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't have any facts or figures to really back this up (73% of all quoted statistics are made up on the spot anyway), but it seems to me that with the growing popularity of dSLR cameras that your average wedding/portrait/family photographers are making less now due to the increased number of people trying their hand at it (greater supply equals lower prices).

While it's possible to make good money in photography, on average it's becoming more and more like taking a vow of poverty. "Uncle Fred" with a dSLR, guys willing to do a wedding on the side for a couple hundred dollars, and people willing to give photos away for free to sports teams in exchange for access to games, have had a marked effect on the pro market. Then as a double-whammy, newspapers have been bleeding red ink and laying off photographers left and right... plus there's also been a lot of consolidation in the photo agency business that's put shooters out of work.

 

[skr8pn]

I can't stand it, I guess I'll have to voice my opinion too. Regarding wedding photography I'd say a lot of it is market driven. We live in Raleigh, NC but we are from southern WV.

We had a photographer (what I would consider pro) 2 doors down from where I grew up. He shot my pictures from little league to Senior prom and he was also a history teacher so he did the photography thing on the evening and weekends. His son was a few years older than me and he too ended up being a teacher but eventually a dedicated pro photographer because it made more money. So, naturally I had the son shoot our wedding since he also did some other pictures for me and my senior portraits.

OK, with all this useless background info what I'm getting at is the dedicated pro photographer in WV did a leather bound book for our wedding with a ton of pictures he completely arranged it all himself (btw he also shot studio pics at the wedding), all this was about $1200. The same type deal from a pro in NC, was well over $3k. So assume he has all the equipment, he shows up for 6 hours (though he had a good as time as we had), he goes back and a good photoshop guy could crank that thing out in a day or two, he's got say 3 days in it minus the book material. That's probably over $40/hr....and don't forget the $2500 worth of prints we ordered later on. He does no work at that point but print and sends off for the canvas prints. There's the cash flow for sure. But his timeline really sucked, took almost a year to get the prints...but thats nother story.

Cliff notes = must have a market

 

[jann1033]

hmm unless I missed it no one has mentioned the most profitable area of photography, paparrazzi where else can you sell a photo for thousands of dollars, and the worse your subject looks the more you get paid...

i was accused of being that by a passerby while on vacation taking photos of some architecture in Savannah Ga ...but no money shot for me

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Dentists, eh?

A surprisingly large number of dentists are into photography. I could only speculate on why.

hmm unless I missed it no one has mentioned the most profitable area of photography, paparrazzi where else can you sell a photo for thousands of dollars, and the worse your subject looks the more you get paid...

I recently read an article (The Rise of the 'Citizen Paparazzi') about the impact of amateurs on the paparazzi market. Apparently prices have been driven down there as well. My favorite comment was:

they [the professional paparazzi] gripe about rude and particularly aggressive behavior from some of the amateurs

 

[MarkBarbieri]

To bring us back off topic for a second...Now that I've let people know that I work for an oil company, I should probably switch out my picture in this week's "Disney Villains" photo contest with a self portrait.

 

[manning]

I did weddings in the days of film, when film was under 2.00 per roll of 36 pics, it cost .17 for a 3x5 and you charged 1.50 for it.

I don't remember what the bigger prints cost. You could make maybe 300.00 - 500.00 per job.

Some would have said wow that's good. Except almost all the weddings were on weekends and there are only 52 weekends in a year.

Plus all the time you had to put in it was not worth it.

I made more money at a full time job, plus it was a five day 40 hour week with benefits.

In order to make a living at it you had to own a studio with a number of photographers working for you.

Then look in the yellow pages and see the number of listings.

Competition was/is fierce!!!

I would say if you were someone like Markbarbieri who travels alot and takes many high quality pictures, the best way to go is sell your prints thru an agency. They do all the work, take a commission and send you a check. You won't get rich, but it is the easiest way to go.

 

[mabas9395]

Since we're off topic again, I've always found it interesting that no one questions it when a photographer or someone similar tries to maximize their revenue by charging the going rate as set by the laws of supply and demand. Even most of our salaries, no mater what our jobs are, basically get set by the supply and the demand for the task we perform, and we try to maximize those every chance we get.

But when an oil company (or bank so that mark isn't the only one getting picked on) tries the exact same thing, they are labeled greedy and unfair. Most of us with retirement accounts have at least a portion of that in the stock market. If those CEO's did anything but make as much money as the company could, we would have them fired.

It sounds like we want the companies that make the products we use to be generous and the companies we invest in to be profitable.

 

[fitzperry]

Since we're off topic again, I've always found it interesting that no one questions it when a photographer or someone similar tries to maximize their revenue by charging the going rate as set by the laws of supply and demand. Even most of our salaries, no mater what our jobs are, basically get set by the supply and the demand for the task we perform, and we try to maximize those every chance we get.

But when an oil company (or bank so that mark isn't the only one getting picked on) tries the exact same thing, they are labeled greedy and unfair. Most of us with retirement accounts have at least a portion of that in the stock market. If those CEO's did anything but make as much money as the company could, we would have them fired.

It sounds like we want the companies that make the products we use to be generous and the companies we invest in to be profitable.

A big, impersonal company like Exxon or Walmart is a much more attractive target than an individual like a photographer who's just trying to earn a decent living. People identify more readily with another individual. Also, the oil companies and banks, etc. have a lot more power than that individual artist or business owner. People figure that they are using that power to bend the rules to their advantage (and of course in some cases they are). For the record though, I dislike the Walmartization of America as much as the next person. If you blindly parachuted into some random city, you'd be hard pressed to figure out where you are unless there were mountains or palm trees nearby. Same restaurants. Same stores. Yuck.

 

[MICKEY88]

So assume he has all the equipment, he shows up for 6 hours (though he had a good as time as we had), he goes back and a good photoshop guy could crank that thing out in a day or two, he's got say 3 days in it minus the book material. That's probably over $40/hr....and don't forget the $2500 worth of prints we ordered later on. He does no work at that point but print and sends off for the canvas prints. There's the cash flow for sure. But his timeline really sucked, took almost a year to get the prints...but thats nother story.

Cliff notes = must have a market

wow.. if he shot sevral hundred pics, there's no way he photoshopped it all in 2 days. but let's say he did, that means he lost 16-24 hours of shooting time the 2 days he did nothing but photoshop, plus he has to pay for his health benefits, vacation time etc....

not nearly the profit you think it is...

yes you can get 8x10's at walmart for 2 dollars, but try getting them that cheaply at a pro lab that specializes in weddings and such...it doesn't happen... if weddings were as profitable as everyone thinks, I wouldn't turn them down..

in the past 2 years I even turned down wedding offers in St Thomas and Greece..., the free trip sounded nice, but wasn't worth the stress and low profit margin..

 

[jann1033]

i do think people also forget the time they spent before the wedding/event, meeting with the customer, showing samples, etc. my daughter's did studio shots pre wedding of her and made a 11x14 of her in her dress for the reception, etc...so add another day or 2 since you may not be able to use the rest of those days for other clients, it always doesn't work out tidily that x leaves and y comes. so that time is income lost as well.

 

[Groucho]

Mark, you're certainly not a villain here. I'd like to think that even if we disagree on some of the finer points of capitalism (and heroes ), we can look past that to enjoy our common love of Disney parks.

Besides, no political position, no matter how extreme, could ever be as unpleasant as actually using a Canon camera.

Since we're off topic again, I've always found it interesting that no one questions it when a photographer or someone similar tries to maximize their revenue by charging the going rate as set by the laws of supply and demand. Even most of our salaries, no mater what our jobs are, basically get set by the supply and the demand for the task we perform, and we try to maximize those every chance we get.

But when an oil company (or bank so that mark isn't the only one getting picked on) tries the exact same thing, they are labeled greedy and unfair. Most of us with retirement accounts have at least a portion of that in the stock market. If those CEO's did anything but make as much money as the company could, we would have them fired.

I think that's kind of apples and oranges. I'm certainly not going to begrudge someone trying to make a fair living. But someone like a pro photographer is generally providing a luxury service, not supplying something that is a basic need for most Americans. And no, I'm not suggesting that the oil companies just give it away out of the goodness of their own hearts. But is it so much to ask that they don't begrudge us from affordable gas? (Though I can't say I mind seeing SUVs fall out of favor thanks to their ghastly mileage. ) Rather than taking the opportunity to bask in record profits which can nearly cripple countless other industries?

What I would suggest is that it appears that there's very, very little competition between the big companies in terms of cost. No one is making an effort to provide a lower-cost gas. Everyone's prices move together, no matter who the gasoline supplier is. Thanks to consolidations, there are extremely few suppliers of gas in the USA, and I believe that this has been bad for most people. Is it out-and-out price fixing between the companies? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was, and as I said earlier, I doubt we'll ever know thanks to very heavy lobbying efforts by the oil companies.

One tangent I forgot to mention earlier should dovetail us back onto something vaguely resembling relevance. How about what Eisner did to Disney? Now, I'm not one of those big Eisner bashers - I think a lot of good things happened during his reign, too - but that was an era of chasing the stockholder dollar, and it changed the original WDW "good neighbor" policy into one that said "we want to vacuum every dollar possible and do our best to destroy the competition." Thanks to a wide variety of hotels, Magical Express service, etc, I'm certainly less likely to wander over to check out Universal than I might have been 10 years ago. (Actually, it's nearly 10 years exactly since the last time I was at Universal in Florida.) Now, I enjoy the new things build a lot, so I can't begrudge them that too much, but I don't enjoy the encroachment of McDonalds into the parks, I don't like hearing that cast members aren't always treated as well as they were in the "old days", I don't like that maintenance isn't as thorough as before, and I hate that 20,000 Leagues was scrapped because it cost too much, and now we have a little Pooh playground instead. And over on the west coast, DL was fairly neglected, and California Adventure was a rather uninspired idea and in possibly the least interesting of all the Disney parks worldwide.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What I would suggest is that it appears that there's very, very little competition between the big companies in terms of cost. No one is making an effort to provide a lower-cost gas. Everyone's prices move together, no matter who the gasoline supplier is. Thanks to consolidations, there are extremely few suppliers of gas in the USA, and I believe that this has been bad for most people. Is it out-and-out price fixing between the companies? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was, and as I said earlier, I doubt we'll ever know thanks to very heavy lobbying efforts by the oil companies.

One thing that I should make clear is that I work for an upstream exploration and production company. We find it, produce it, and sell it into the midstream and downstream markets. We don't refine or retail gasoline. I can tell you that our industry is both very competitive and cooperative at the same time.

It's competitive in that there are a large number of companies both in the US and internationally all engaged in the same business from individual well owners to huge state run companies. We are all selling a commodity into a big market, so it is quite difficult to manipulate the price.

That isn't to say that the market is perfectly efficient. Many of the largest oil producing companies formed a cartel (OPEC) to manipulate prices, but even their power is limited. They lost control of the market in the 80's and watched prices collapse. They got to ridiculously low levels again in the 90's.

Still, there have been times when OPEC had significant influence on the price of oil. Historically, their goal was to keep it high enough to make lots of money but not so high that it would slow demand or encourage alternatives. Now, demand is so high relative to supply that everyone with the possible exception of the Saudi's is producing pretty much everything they can.

It's also an oddly cooperative business. We partner with many of our competitors on a lot of big projects. When a deep water discovery can cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, it's prudent to hedge your risks by spreading the costs and risks among several companies.

We are also a "dynamic" industry in that companies are constantly buying one another, being spun off, being started from scratch, or divesting large holdings. In 2003, I was in a company that was acquired (which was that companies 5th major acquisition in as many years). In 2005, I changed companies. In 2006, we acquired two major companies simultaneously. In 2007, we sold off over $10 billion in assets. I've been through a four rounds of layoffs during that time and, for better or worse, survived each round.

As for whether prices are being fixed, I can say for certain that it doesn't happen upstream. Maybe the refiners or distributors can do it. The retailers are in a very competitive business. They make more on beer, carwashes, and other swag than they do on the gasoline.

As for prices moving together, that's certainly no accident. They all have to watch each others prices closely. If your price is too high, you'll lose customers really quick. For the most part, gas is gas so people shop at whoever is cheaper by a penny. The exception, of course, being that place near the car rental lots in Orlando that must have the most amazing gas in the world based on what they charge.

I've been told (though I have never seen the data myself), that gas prices all over the nation are generally the same once you factor in taxes and transportation costs from refineries. If you are paying more than people in other states, it's because you live farther from refineries or your gas taxes are higher.

I think the big money is in bottled water. Even today, it costs more per gallon than gasoline. I can assure you that the water guys aren't spending billions of dollars to drill water wells in mile deep seas and 5 miles into the ground.

I do have to say that I love my job. The problems are complex. The people I work with are smart, engaged, and passionate about what they do. I don't actually find or produce oil, I lead a team that helps provide them with the data they need to do their business. The company treats us exceptionally well. We work flexible hours, get every other Friday off, have a fantastic gym on site, a free on-site doctor, a choice of 6 good health insurance plans, a defined benefit pension, a dollar for dollar match up to 6% on our 401K, retiree medical benefits, and can retire at age 55. We just had a really good year and I handed out bonuses to my staff this week that made them all very, very happy. We've come a long way from the late 90's when we were slowly being squeezed to death while we watched the dot com kids making bazillions. Pretty soon, we'll probably get acquired and I'll be laid off and prices will collapse again. It's all part of the cycle of life in our industry.

 

[Nikel]

You mean I'm supposed to be making a profit? Sure, it's possible, but it takes time. And more than just good photography skills. You need to have good people skills (often the difference between a $5k wedding photog and a $10k photog isn't as much skill and it is personality) and be a good business person. I'm hoping to see a profit by next year, which will be my 4rd year in biz, and be able to live off of my photography by my 5th year.

I can't stand it, I guess I'll have to voice my opinion too. Regarding wedding photography I'd say a lot of it is market driven. We live in Raleigh, NC but we are from southern WV.

We had a photographer (what I would consider pro) 2 doors down from where I grew up. He shot my pictures from little league to Senior prom and he was also a history teacher so he did the photography thing on the evening and weekends. His son was a few years older than me and he too ended up being a teacher but eventually a dedicated pro photographer because it made more money. So, naturally I had the son shoot our wedding since he also did some other pictures for me and my senior portraits.

OK, with all this useless background info what I'm getting at is the dedicated pro photographer in WV did a leather bound book for our wedding with a ton of pictures he completely arranged it all himself (btw he also shot studio pics at the wedding), all this was about $1200. The same type deal from a pro in NC, was well over $3k. So assume he has all the equipment, he shows up for 6 hours (though he had a good as time as we had), he goes back and a good photoshop guy could crank that thing out in a day or two, he's got say 3 days in it minus the book material. That's probably over $40/hr....and don't forget the $2500 worth of prints we ordered later on. He does no work at that point but print and sends off for the canvas prints. There's the cash flow for sure. But his timeline really sucked, took almost a year to get the prints...but thats nother story.

Cliff notes = must have a market

I've really really got to disagree with you. Let me just refer you to this: http://rifephotoblog2.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-does-wedding-photography-cost-so.html

 

[Squishypig]

I've really really got to disagree with you. Let me just refer you to this: http://rifephotoblog2.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-does-wedding-photography-cost-so.html

If someone is doing that professinally though, wouldn't a lot of those expenses be counted towards business deductions come tax time? Mileage, amortization of equipment, etc? Not saying that it would bump someone in to the next tax bracket but I didn't see that accounted for the that blog entry.

That being said, I do realize the profit margin on photography (especially wedding photography) is low considering the amount of work and the time invested in each project. I am very lucky that I have a friend who is bulking up her portfolio and I'm only paying $1,500 for 8 hours of shooting time, post editing and a DVD of the edited pictures. She's essentially paying ME to take pictures of my wedding.

 

[Nikel]

If someone is doing that professinally though, wouldn't a lot of those expenses be counted towards business deductions come tax time? Mileage, amortization of equipment, etc? Not saying that it would bump someone in to the next tax bracket but I didn't see that accounted for the that blog entry.

That being said, I do realize the profit margin on photography (especially wedding photography) is low considering the amount of work and the time invested in each project. I am very lucky that I have a friend who is bulking up her portfolio and I'm only paying $1,500 for 8 hours of shooting time, post editing and a DVD of the edited pictures. She's essentially paying ME to take pictures of my wedding.

Yeah, mileage and stuff can be deducted. Equipment, depending on what it is, can be claimed fully or depreciated out over a period of time. But don't let that fool you. I had a form due on March 1st - a property assessment. I have to pay on my gear yearly. And it never full depreciates away, I will always be paying a percentage. I'm not sure if that's the same everywhere or not.

And honestly, it's great that you think $1500 is a deal. Many people don't. When I did my first wedding as a primary shooter last year, it was for an acquaintance of a friend. It was around 12 hours of coverage, I had a second shooter, and they got a disc with the edited images which was ready within 2 weeks of the wedding. Being that it was my first wedding with the full responsibility, even though I was already in business doing portrait and other event work, I didn't feel comfortable charging much, so I quoted them $500. (Plus it was a very portfolio worthy location.) The bride initially told me that was more than she wanted to pay, they were looking for around $300. So I wished her well because no way was I willing to put in that much work for that little and never expected to hear from her again. I guess she got a reality check because she called me back within a couple of days and was very content with my pricing.