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]

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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!