Reasons Why Professional Photographers Cannot Work for Free

safyre

@ ThomasHorton

Thanks for your response.
For the record, I am in my mid 20s and am obviously not a boomer so I can not speak from personal experience; however I will say that I have many Boomers that are clients and they tend to best paying, least lowballing clients that I have.

I understand how you are comparing casual photos taken with instamatics to modern photos taken with smartphones. However I will say this; back then, taking photos used film, and film cost money; a significant amount if you wanted to take large volumes of it. There was a clear upper bound on how many photos you could take; ie, you couldn't take 1000s of photos unless you were willing to take a hit to the wallet. Nowadays, the upper bound is nearly infinite as long as you got storage space for it. People can take hundreds of thousands of photos now and the only thing they need to worry about is space and their shutter needing to be replaced. Furthermore with smartphones, I'm sure people have much easier access to photography in their fingertips than those in the past with instamatics.

So how does this relate to my photography and dealing with clients. Well for one thing; I can't tell you how many times someone has told me after I've given a quote "Oh, I'll have a friend take them for me". Fyi, my rates are at market price and my quality is above average for it. Now, think back to the days of film, would this situation happen as often?

I understand what you're saying in regards that not all photography should be based solely on quality; and that is true. Obviously not everyone needs quality selfies or photos of themselves getting hammered at a party. My original point wasn't whether or not people need quality photos; rather how this mentality is affecting professional photographers today. The precedent of quality has already been set with one of the largest genres of photography: weddings. And lets be real, weddings are how many photographers are able to remain professionals and the main reason why they are able to make as much as they do is based on quality. However, this idea of quantity over quality is permeating into this genre more than ever. I know photographers who are making half as much on weddings as they did a decade ago and a lot of that has to do with how people value photography today.

Msmoto

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Phototogs
Don't let 'em pick Nikons and flash diffusers
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such

Been there, done that....

;;)

paulr

Fritz said:
So, if your son or daughter just graduated from college would you tell them to become a photographer or not given current conditions?
Depends what is important to them in life They will not get rich been a photographer yet that might not be important.
I recommend being a "Banker", Its the only occupation I know ,that when you get it wrong, they give you a bonus of one Million $ instead of Two Million $. when you get it right.

Ironheart

I recommend being a "Banker", Its the only occupation I know ,that when you get it wrong, they give you a bonus of one Million $ instead of Two Million $. when you get it right.

Been there, done that

TaoTeJared

@ ThomasHorton

Thanks for your response.
For the record, I am in my mid 20s and am obviously not a boomer so I can not speak from personal experience; however I will say that I have many Boomers that are clients and they tend to best paying, least lowballing clients that I have.

I think you may be miss associating base reasons for the work. Baby Boomers have money and can afford to pay for the photographs. That has always been the case from generation to generation. I agree with @ThomasHorton that the previous generations had their "low fi" cameras that took low quality images just as digi cams do/have now. I have never met anyone from any generation that doesn't see or understand that photographers provide better quality. "Good enough" has always existed.

I think it comes down to basic household economics. These days people, especially young families have less disposable income or in many cases, have so many more options to spend disposable income on different things than the past. 20 years ago when I was leaving high school, Video games hit the $50 mark, game systems hit the $300 mark, but computers were barely in reach. Cell phones cost $100 and you only got 60min per month for $40. You still only had 1 cable box in your house and since TVs hadn't changed in 40 years, each TV was close to 20 years old and if you were lucky, your parents had a 19" one in their bedroom, a 27" one in your living room and if you were really lucky, a 13" one to play games on - and it was color!

Zip forward to today, phones are $300 with plans costing $150/month, and you now have screen protectors, cases, multiple chargers and Apps to buy. People have multiple cable boxes in each house, TVs are maybe 5-6 years old and replaced much sooner, and there is one for each person in the house. Most replace their computer which have monitors are larger than the TV my parents had in their bedroom every 4 years. Look at even Cameras. A 35mm compact film camera would last you 10 years easily as "Film" didn't change. Now after 3-4 years, the tech becomes dated the draw to upgrade is quite strong.

And that is the world we are in, the increased monthly bills from additional items in our lives and the need to upgrade things (or the feeling you need too) at a much higher frequency than ever before. That desire or need just wasn't as prevalent in all families as it is today - nor at the cost.

I know not everyone lives/lived like that, and there are some who pride themselves in owning the same cell phone for 10 years, but my point is there is a very constant pull for people to spend money in more ways than ever before and it is that "trickle" cost. $10 here, $5 more gets you "this much!" there, now there are cell phones for each member in the house, etc. The monthly cost of living our "normal" lives has increased due to the number of monthly "things" we have or want. It just all equates to Photographers and other "service" professions have to compete for a decreasing pool of disposable income against an always increasing number of competitors. Then add in that the competitors are monthly "lower" cost where we need a much larger lump for the work "now" instead of monthly payments. Honestly I have been contemplating if some sort kind of monthly/bimonthly business model of some sort could be viable.

When I was young, our family had to postpone family photos because I hit a baseball through a neighbors window that cost my parents $100. A few weeks ago, I had a family postpone because their 9 yr old kid racked up a $400 bill from in-app game purchases. Nothing is new to kids costing parents a big sums of money from time to time, but where they come from, and how regularly it does, has.

Fritz

The concept of "value added" for a service might now be more difficult to substantiate in photography outside the realm of advertising. I restore collectible items for a living and when a dealer brings me an item it is generally possible to illustrate how my efforts will either make the item more valuable or easier to sell. So I make my clients money. In other service businesses plumber, auto mechanic etc., the cost benefit to the customer is pretty self evident. But I think it must be increasingly difficult to quantify the benefits of something so artistic and intangible as photography, particularly in a world where mass technology has made image creation available to almost everybody. So how do you create a business model that returns enough profit and enough volume to survive under the adverse conditions alluded to in this thread. I have to say that it no longer seems to be a viable career path.

TaoTeJared

...But I think it must be increasingly difficult to quantify the benefits of something so artistic and intangible as photography, particularly in a world where mass technology has made image creation available to almost everybody. So how do you create a business model that returns enough profit and enough volume to survive under the adverse conditions alluded to in this thread. I have to say that it no longer seems to be a viable career path.

As with any business there is only two ways to make more money - Raise prices or increase volume. Prices are certainly being pushed down so Volume it is. Good thing is that people are more open to (and wanting) staged photos for kids sports and school groups (which is fun and time consuming), events for companies (which is boring but mindless time work), and Baby Boomers like hiring someone to take family event photos (Grand-kids baptisms, etc.) The latter is what a lot of my stuff comes in as. Not real exciting but pays the bills. A lot of the type of work can really depend where you live and the size of population that enables one to be more specialized or if you have to ware many hats.

donaldejose

Everyone can work for free; you just can't live for free!

Parke1953

No comment.

Fritz

The moto of the State of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die"- maybe I should have listened.

NSXTypeR

So, if your son or daughter just graduated from college would you tell them to become a photographer or not given current conditions?

I'm 23, I had considered photography as a profession. It's a great hobby of mine, but I would not go into photography as a profession. I hate being constrained, I just like taking photos of what I like.

It's definitely not an easy job to go into. That being said, nothing is easy in life, but photography just seems like one of the harder ones.

More power to you if anyone else want's to make it a profession though.

ThomasHorton

A few more things to consider.

In my generation and my parent's generation we really only had two rather extreme choices when it came to photographing events

1. Aunt Doris and her Instamatic with flashcubes (anyone remember those!)
2. Professional photographer

There were, of course, serious amature photographers out there, but they were not as common as they are now. My parents only knew one serious amature photographer and that was ony due to my father working in the optical field. Most of my friends/parent's friends did not personally know of a serious amature photographer. Every one had an Aunt Doris, though who was "rather good at photography".

That was one of the things that made professional photographers valuable -- the alternative was signficantly different in quality, both photographically and artistically.

So when considering photographing an event, those were our practical choices back then. These days, you can't swing a PC cord without hitting several serious amature photographers. Pro and Prosumer gear is economically viable for even schleps like me. Not only that but the technical and artistic quality of amature photographers has improved. I think we all know of an amature photographer who takes better pictures than a professional photographer. Being a pro does not mean expertise, nor does being an amature mean a lack of expertise.

I would opine that a 20 something today with their cell phone camera has more artistic and technical ability in their photography than my Aunt Doris had 50 years ago. It would be interesting to compare the technical abilities of a serious amature today with the technical abilities of a professional photographer 50 years ago.

This means that the technical and artistic difference between a professional photographer and the amature photographer has diminished in comparision to how it was 50 years ago. Not saying that there is not a difference today, but the difference today is smaller than it was 50 years ago.

Today, when considering photographing an event, the practical choices have increased. Cell phone camera (casual photographer) , Entry level digital camera (Amature), Prosumer level camera (serious amature), Professional camera (professional photographer). Many more choices. No longer am I faced with the old choice of either professional photographer or Aunt Doris' mugshot/DMV photography.

Today, I think we can do more with an SB800 than many professional photographers could do 50 years ago with their big lights. Certanly we can do it easier and cheaper today. Advanced metering used to be something only pros could afford, now my point and shoot has a better meter than what was around 50 years ago.

50 Years ago, if you handed even a serious amature the equipment a professional photographer used, there woudd be a possibility that the amature would not know how to use it, and most certanly would not be able to use it as well as the professional.

Today, if you hand a serious amature pro equipment, the amature may hand it back proclaming that what they have is better. And it may be better.

It was easier to be a professional photographer 50 years ago. Primarily because the cameras, lighting equipment, technical information was not easily acquired by the average person. There was a huge difference between a professional photographer and my Aunt Doris. This was apparent and the cost of hiring a professional photographer was more easily justified -- the end product was significantly better.

(cont)

ThomasHorton

Part 2 because I am such a bombastic jerk

These days, there is not such a huge difference. Yes, in theory, a professional photographer's picture will be better, but will it be significantly better than one taken by a serious amature (especially when they may be using the same equipment and may have the same education/experience)? Better? Probably. Significantly better? perhaps. Significantly better to justify the rather high prices being charged? A harder sell these days.

When the abilities between a professional and an amature get smaller, it becomes harder for the professional to justify the costs. The professional needs to be able to offer something that an amature can't provide. In photography, this is becoming more difficult with the advent of our current technology.

Pros often try to justify it by proclaiming that while amatures can buy pro equipment, only the professional has the technical ability and artistic experience. That may or may be true. It would depend on the pro and the amature. Both can be good and bad. Regardless though, trying to demonstrate technical and artistic experience to a layperson client is not always easy. Especially with the advent of the Internets Tubes, it is very easy for a potential client to see photographs of both professionals and serious amatures to compare.

That is another advantage that professional photographers had 50 years ago. Only professional photographers advertized. Unless you knew a serious amature and was invited to see their pictures, it was more difficult to see the quality that a skilled amature photographer could produce. For the pro it was a little more easy. We let our fingers do the walking (does anyone these days even know what that means? LoL) Pros produced samples of their work.

These days, it is easier to find pictures taken by amatures than it is to find pictures taken by pros. Makes it harder for the pro to be able to sell the concept that it is worth it to pay them large amounts of mony for their work.

Techology is the professional photographer's worst enemy. Not the client. Technology, including the technology to learn photography (the concept of this very website for example) has made the difference between an amature and a professional photographer smaller (or to be more precise, appears to be smaller).

Good for the amature photographer, but not so good for the professional photographer.

Which brings up the key question: What can a professional photographer offer clients that serious amatures can't provide, especially when there is a significant cost difference? When a potential client is weighing their wallet while looking at a professional photographer and the larger number of serious amature photographers, the client's decision is harder to make then it used to be.

There have been many industries that have fallen by the wayside due to changing technology and changing populace. Professional photography may become one of them.

The only hope is there there will once again be some form of technological breakthrough that only professional photographers will be able to learn to use, will be able to afford and will provide something amature photographers won't be able to provide.

Honestly, while there may be a technological breakthrough, gone forever are the days when only professional can afford and learn to operate the new equipment.

paulr

Pro Photographer have to work to schedules unlike Amateurs, Pro Photographers are sometimes part of a team and they are sometines given one chance to get it right, along with all the other team players plus an amateur can spend days perfecting just one image, a pro is not allowed that luxury Making images for Love are different to making images for a living.Plus when you get it right, then stage two comes along, trying to get paid, I could write a book on excuses.

michael66

Pro Photographer have to work to schedules unlike Amateurs, Pro Photographers are sometimes part of a team and they are sometines given one chance to get it right, along with all the other team players plus an amateur can spend days perfecting just one image, a pro is not allowed that luxury Making images for Love are different to making images for a living.Plus when you get it right, then stage two comes along, trying to get paid, I could write a book on excuses.

I'm sorry, but I do have to disagree with the notion of not having a schedule. I was never a 'pro' in the sense that it was my livelihood. However, I did do work for the school newspaper and yearbook, many concerts working for the band ( as well as roadie work ) and as an assistant to a few pros. Then later various team pictures for my kids. Trust me, you do not want to p*ss off the other parents or your own kids. There was always the next game, but you can't tell them that. That pressure was worse than anything else. =((

michael66

...

Wow. A lot there. Consider this my 2 cents...

What I've seen happening a lot more these days, is the whole team effort. A single team hired for an event. corporate, wedding, or Bar(t) mitvah. The team includes the limo(s), driver(s), photographer(s), DJs, security and professional partyers ( what would you call people that go out into the crowd and engage them in various activity and give-aways ) all work for the same company and work together. Pictures are put up and sold all during the event. I actually saw a guy using PS at one event. And the coolest thing, a flip book presented to the newly married couple as they left the dance floor. This is what you are competing against. You can't do it alone.

ThomasHorton

What I've seen happening a lot more these days, is the whole team effort. A single team hired for an event. corporate, wedding, or Bar(t) mitvah. ..... This is what you are competing against. You can't do it alone.

I think that is a real good point. That's a great example of what a professional (in this case team) photographer can provide that a single amature photographer can't. It is more than just taking the pictures.

bland

IMO a pro photographer isn't someone that makes money shooting pictures on weekends, even if they're with a team of photographers shooting an event.

A pro photographer is someone that makes his/her sole living being a photographer. In order to make a living at this they are very, very good. Do they shoot for free, sometimes they do in order to get their name in an area they want to make money in, or as a favor knowing in return business will come from it.

A pro photographer can't make a living shooting just one type of venue, like weddings or concerts. They have to be able to shoot, and shoot extremely well, every type of venue possible in order to make a living at it. Which includes industrial, civic, magazines and the list goes on and on.

michael66

IMO a pro photographer isn't someone that makes money shooting pictures on weekends, even if they're with a team of photographers shooting an event.

There are all kinds of professional photographers. Disney hires hundreds of them and they make very little. The word professional only means that they get paid. Is says nothing to their class, style or talent.

bland

There are all kinds of professional photographers. Disney hires hundreds of them and they make very little. The word professional only means that they get paid. Is says nothing to their class, style or talent.

I have to disagree with you, Michael. Professional refers to Profession, which means one who makes his/her sole living from said job.

PB_PM

Just because they don't make what many would consider a livable wage, doesn't mean it isn't their sole income.

bland

Just because they don't make what many would consider a livable wage, doesn't mean it isn't their sole income.

IMO it would be like comparing a guy on a street corner selling tamales or the hot dog guy at a baseball game to a Chef, huge difference.

PB_PM

n/a

michael66

There are all kinds of professional photographers. Disney hires hundreds of them and they make very little. The word professional only means that they get paid. Is says nothing to their class, style or talent.

I have to disagree with you, Michael. Professional refers to Profession, which means one who makes his/her sole living from said job.

Yes, correct. And that is what these photographers working for Disney are doing. They are full-time photogs making not more than minimum wage. They will burn-out and quit.

Just because they don't make what many would consider a livable wage, doesn't mean it isn't their sole income.

IMO it would be like comparing a guy on a street corner selling tamales or the hot dog guy at a baseball game to a Chef, huge difference.

And as such, they are compared. We are not talking talent, but amount of pay. I've seen some professional wedding photogs that seem to be lucky to know how to turn the camera on.

I see too many hacks out there, like in any profession; Lawyers, Doctors, programmers, mechanics. Sorry, now I am starting to sound argumentative, so I'll stop.

For now?

PB_PM

IMO it would be like comparing a guy on a street corner selling tamales or the hot dog guy at a baseball game to a Chef, huge difference.

I said that because the average "pro" photographer, according to almost any statistics I look at anyway, make below minimum wage. To some that is not a livable wage, to others it is. Now what those numbers don't account for is, does that "pro" photographer's wife/husband/significant other also make an income? So, do you consider that the "pro" photographer must be the bread winner of the family, or simply someone who's sole income comes from photography?