Professional Photograger salaries and earnings (info-question)

Many of you are professional photographers and many of you dream to become in the future (myself also, if opportunity comes and I decide to change careers).

One important think to consider are the working conditions and earnings that a photographer should expect. The national statistics are published by the U.S. Department of Labor (www.bls.gov). You will find interesting info there. I copied some information from the website below.

I personally find striking the that the median annual earnings are just a mere $24,040 in 2002. This surely is very little money if you consider that the cost of living in places with more demand are very high (NYC, LA).

A question for you pros. Are these numbers real? Is it true that the earnings of 50% of the photographers are between $17,740-$34,910.

Without having to disclose your salary, it would be useful information to many of us to know from you pro, what is your area of photography and what are the earnings expected for that area according to your experience and knowledge. Statistics are sometimes a bit misleading.

I personally earn > 3x this salary and I can't imagine with the living cost in San Diego (my location) how a photographer with theses earnings can maintain a family and have a middle class living.

Thanks much for your feedback.

Miguel

1. #########

Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $24,040 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $17,740 and $34,910. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $14,640, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $49,920. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $31,460 for newspapers and periodicals and $21,860 for other professional or scientific services.

Salaried photographers—more of whom work full time—tend to earn more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves solely through their art.

Salaried photographers—more of whom work full time—tend to earn

Miguel G207943 said:

more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and
portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur
considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and
accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine
arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves
solely through their art.

Click to expand...

I am surprised by this. Usually a person who works for themselves makes more than a comparable position that is salaried and is employed. Granted there are expenses to deal with, but usually that is a cost of doing business.

Miguel G said:

Many of you are professional photographers and many of you dream to
become in the future (myself also, if opportunity comes and I
decide to change careers).

One important think to consider are the working conditions and
earnings that a photographer should expect. The national statistics
are published by the U.S. Department of Labor (www.bls.gov). You
will find interesting info there. I copied some information from
the website below.

I personally find striking the that the median annual earnings are
just a mere $24,040 in 2002. This surely is very little money if
you consider that the cost of living in places with more demand are
very high (NYC, LA).

A question for you pros. Are these numbers real? Is it true that
the earnings of 50% of the photographers are between
$17,740-$34,910.

Without having to disclose your salary, it would be useful
information to many of us to know from you pro, what is your area
of photography and what are the earnings expected for that area
according to your experience and knowledge. Statistics are
sometimes a bit misleading.

I personally earn > 3x this salary and I can't imagine with the
living cost in San Diego (my location) how a photographer with
theses earnings can maintain a family and have a middle class
living.

Thanks much for your feedback.

Miguel

1. #########

Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $24,040 in
2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $17,740 and $34,910. The
lowest 10 percent earned less than $14,640, and the highest 10
percent earned more than $49,920. Median annual earnings in the
industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers
were $31,460 for newspapers and periodicals and $21,860 for other
professional or scientific services.

Salaried photographers—more of whom work full time—tend to earn
more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and
portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur
considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and
accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine
arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves
solely through their art.

Click to expand...

First off...if you are stepping into self emloyment you should'nt "expect" any earnings.

As for me...I earn well over that, not bragging but I produce corporate videos as well as shoot advertising sales. Most of my projects have budgets in excess of those stated yearly earnings.

My opinion on those stats is, they include photogs that "dabble" in photography...a wedding here, a soccer team shoot there...just my hypothesis.

If you choose the right niche and WORK at it FULL time the potential is unlimited.

FWIW

Odd, other surveys put it at $45-55K. First thing to look at is who did they survey. Like the other poster said, could be those who just dabble in it.

Miguel G said:

Many of you are professional photographers and many of you dream to
become in the future (myself also, if opportunity comes and I
decide to change careers).

One important think to consider are the working conditions and
earnings that a photographer should expect. The national statistics
are published by the U.S. Department of Labor (www.bls.gov). You
will find interesting info there. I copied some information from
the website below.

I personally find striking the that the median annual earnings are
just a mere $24,040 in 2002. This surely is very little money if
you consider that the cost of living in places with more demand are
very high (NYC, LA).

A question for you pros. Are these numbers real? Is it true that
the earnings of 50% of the photographers are between
$17,740-$34,910.

Without having to disclose your salary, it would be useful
information to many of us to know from you pro, what is your area
of photography and what are the earnings expected for that area
according to your experience and knowledge. Statistics are
sometimes a bit misleading.

I personally earn > 3x this salary and I can't imagine with the
living cost in San Diego (my location) how a photographer with
theses earnings can maintain a family and have a middle class
living.

Thanks much for your feedback.

Miguel

1. #########

Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $24,040 in
2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $17,740 and $34,910. The
lowest 10 percent earned less than $14,640, and the highest 10
percent earned more than $49,920. Median annual earnings in the
industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers
were $31,460 for newspapers and periodicals and $21,860 for other
professional or scientific services.

Salaried photographers—more of whom work full time—tend to earn
more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and
portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur
considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and
accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine
arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves
solely through their art.

Click to expand...

--
Just shoot! =)

Miguel G said:

Many of you are professional photographers and many of you dream to
become in the future (myself also, if opportunity comes and I
decide to change careers).

Click to expand...

Photography, whether self-employed or salaried, is not a high paying career. Most of the mom and pop studios don't generate a living wage. If you check, it's the spouse with the steady job that keeps the family afloat. I know of some photographers who make a nice living (75-120k), but they are in a small minority.

I changed carreers in 1987. I was making ~$50k, adjusted to today's dollars. I rarely worked less than 50 hours a week. I think this is perhaps average or a little better for a general purpose photographer in a medium sized town.

Some pro photography fields which have historically paid better than mom and pop studios have seen either flat or declining earnings over the last ten years. Commercial and product photographers are hurting. I recently talked to the coordinator of a very large Atlanta studio. They had five teams that they sent to cover large conventions all over the U.S. They have cut back to the owner plus one other team and laid off the coordinator. The big boys, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, HP, etc. aren't hiring photographers to photograph their booths anymore. They're getting by with digital photos taken by an employee.

There's also so much competition that advertising companies are really squeezing the advertising photographer.

Pro photography is changing. Some veterans are adapting and doing better than ever, while others are closing up shop. Whenever there is a big change in technology, there is a flood of folks who want to get in the business. The only business with a higher failure rate than photography is the restaurant business.

I can think of two big changes created by digital. While a pro digital camera is roughly the same cost as the venerable medium format camera, it will have to be depreciated much more quickly. While I could expect my Mamiya RB67's to last me five to ten years, I think pro's now will have to upgrade at least every 18 months for the near future. For wedding photographers, while they have much more control, post processing has shifted back from the labs to the photographer. This is really sqeezing the weekender, who used to shoot the wedding, drop the film in the mail and just put the album together. I've read some posts from part timers that have had to take sick leave from their day job to get all the PSing done.

Doug

I know I once saw a website that listed some average stock earnings of shooters at specific agencies, but I can't find it now. Anybody know about it?

How is the stock field doing now? There are a lot more shots, but the internet makes it a whole lot easier for users to find the and desktop publishing makes it easier to use them.

Any stock shooters out there?

JP

Doug MacMillan said:

Some pro photography fields which have historically paid better
than mom and pop studios have seen either flat or declining
earnings over the last ten years. Commercial and product
photographers are hurting. I recently talked to the coordinator of
a very large Atlanta studio. They had five teams that they sent to
cover large conventions all over the U.S. They have cut back to
the owner plus one other team and laid off the coordinator. The
big boys, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, HP, etc. aren't hiring
photographers to photograph their booths anymore. They're getting
by with digital photos taken by an employee.

There's also so much competition that advertising companies are
really squeezing the advertising photographer.

Pro photography is changing. Some veterans are adapting and doing
better than ever, while others are closing up shop. Whenever there
is a big change in technology, there is a flood of folks who want
to get in the business. The only business with a higher failure
rate than photography is the restaurant business.

I can think of two big changes created by digital. While a pro
digital camera is roughly the same cost as the venerable medium
format camera, it will have to be depreciated much more quickly.
While I could expect my Mamiya RB67's to last me five to ten years,
I think pro's now will have to upgrade at least every 18 months for
the near future. For wedding photographers, while they have much
more control, post processing has shifted back from the labs to the
photographer. This is really sqeezing the weekender, who used to
shoot the wedding, drop the film in the mail and just put the album
together. I've read some posts from part timers that have had to
take sick leave from their day job to get all the PSing done.

Doug

Click to expand...

I talked to about 500 high school kids at a career day last fall. The first thing I told them was that if their goal is to make a lot of money, look towards other professions. Very few photographers make good incomes; most do not. That can be said of many careers, but in many other careers the majority make very good incomes. My daughter's first job (pharmacist) after 5 years of college paid more than double what I earn. She has a 40-hour per week job, security, good health insurance, stock options, retirement plan and nice working conditions.

25 years ago I was making five TIMES what I earn now as a photographer (NOT including inflation!). And I was working fewer hours. Would I go back to that job? No. I wasn't happy. I could buy about anything I wanted, but all I wanted was time, and that's hard to buy. Of course now I have to work all the time just to make ends meet, but I enjoy the work. I miss the 6-figure income, but I can't imagine doing anything else. Being poor can be fun! LOL

I believe that you got it right there, in 1 post you gave a real picture of the entire scenario:

let's face it, we like to work alone. Take weddings for example, the income is interesting but in order to make more money we should organize and work with other photographers and assistants and big offices.
But no, we like to work alone

Doing a couple of weddings a week during the "wedding season" doesn't bring home the real money, but that's how the majority of the photographers I know like to work.

And before digital it was getting boring: now that we shoot digital I do work more but still I like it that way.
Mark

http://www.imagingphotographics.com

Ron Gee wrote:
The national statistics

Ron Gee said:

Ron Gee said:

are published by the U.S. Department of Labor (www.bls.gov). You
will find interesting info there. I copied some information from
the website below.

I personally find striking the that the median annual earnings are
just a mere $24,040 in 2002. This surely is very little money if
you consider that the cost of living in places with more demand are
very high (NYC, LA).

A question for you pros. Are these numbers real? Is it true that
the earnings of 50% of the photographers are between
$17,740-$34,910.

Click to expand...

My opinion on those stats is, they include photogs that "dabble" in
photography...a wedding here, a soccer team shoot there...just my
hypothesis.

Click to expand...

The data is appropriately summarized by the use of the median rather than the mean(average) in this case. By picking the median as the descriptive number the 'dabblers' and 'highly successful' are pared away.

The $24k number says that if you lined up all professional photographers in the country from the lowest income to the highest income the guy smack dab in the middle would be pulling down about $24k after expenses.

Going further, if you counted up from the bottom to eliminate first 25%, the 'dabblers' and the the 'less competent' you would find the photographers at the 'bottom of the middle half' to make a bit less than $18k. And count down 25% from the top, cut off the most successful folks, and you find that the next photographers down are making around $35k, net.

It's not a lot of money. One could certainly earn a lot more doing a lot of different things. But satisfaction doesn't come just from income.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

A friend works in San Jose for a tech magazine. He does both
portrait and technical work and is paid under $60k plus
milage on his car. He is under pressure all day long having
to make four or more appointments all over the Bay Area.
This is not much money for the Bay Area, Ca.

He keeps the job for two reasons. Health insurance and he makes
contacts for weekend jobs.

He does some gallery sales, but not enough to jump up and down about.

I think this is pretty typical, but remember these companies really expect
a long day and hard work. He tries to avoid the office as much as possible
because they also want him to double as a tech support for people there
who don't know their way around the computers in the graphics dept...?

The Professional Photographers of America organization ( http://www.ppa.com )has some good stats too. And you should look at those too. Based on my 20 years in the business I'd say the taxable income numbers you posted are about correct for 50% of working photographers, either on staff and self employed.

Almost every photographer I know of concentrates on his 'craft' of photography instead of what will make him lots of money.

The way to make money in photography is to learn how to SELL and MARKET yourself.

More than once I've encountered mediocre photographers who are great self promoters and make over 75K a year doing what they like.

It's all too frequent that I meet 'professionals' who have the personality of a toilet seat. I'm sorry, unless you're the best photographer in town or the universe, just being a good photographer isn't enough. Self promotion is the key.

--
John

John, great way to throw water in our faces. =) I mean that in a good way. I think we need to follow the example of our fellow poster brucelynn who not only made some great images, but like you said, knew how to market it effectively.

Even his writing was light, and positive and the way he answered questions was like a customer service pro.

John said:

Almost every photographer I know of concentrates on his 'craft' of
photography instead of what will make him lots of money.

The way to make money in photography is to learn how to SELL and
MARKET yourself.

More than once I've encountered mediocre photographers who are
great self promoters and make over 75K a year doing what they like.

It's all too frequent that I meet 'professionals' who have the
personality of a toilet seat. I'm sorry, unless you're the best
photographer in town or the universe, just being a good
photographer isn't enough. Self promotion is the key.

--
John

Click to expand...

--
Just shoot! =)

John in Florida said:

It's all too frequent that I meet 'professionals' who have the
personality of a toilet seat. I'm sorry, unless you're the best
photographer in town or the universe, just being a good
photographer isn't enough. Self promotion is the key.

Click to expand...

Sad, and funny at the same time, but true.

All the low-ballers in this business pretty much killed it. I make a lot more compared to my pj colleagues just by doing wedding and corporate stuff. And my work isn't even as good as some of theirs. Frankly, in order to maintain a standard of living I've gotten into real estate. Keep in mind that I'm very good at photo, and have a lot of industry experience and big-name contacts, but I would still work 80 hours/week for 52 weeks a year in order to live well.

I feel sorry for the newbies and especially all the photography students about to finish college about to get into this. They've chosen a hard life for themselves.

Basically, if you're only NOW starting out in photography and you choose this as a profession, you can basically kiss the other really good things in life goodbye, like home ownership, health care, family vacations, private school for the kids, etc. This is perhaps not true for those who are either amazing business people or amazing photographers, but they're not exactly "starting out", either.

there was a time not so long ago when photographers, even just the good ones, could make a good living, but lowballers have ended that era.

-m

--
http://www.mauriceramirez.com

mauriceramirez said:

mauriceramirez said:

It's all too frequent that I meet 'professionals' who have the
personality of a toilet seat. I'm sorry, unless you're the best
photographer in town or the universe, just being a good
photographer isn't enough. Self promotion is the key.

Click to expand...

Sad, and funny at the same time, but true.

All the low-ballers in this business pretty much killed it. I make
a lot more compared to my pj colleagues just by doing wedding and
corporate stuff. And my work isn't even as good as some of theirs.
Frankly, in order to maintain a standard of living I've gotten into
real estate. Keep in mind that I'm very good at photo, and have a
lot of industry experience and big-name contacts, but I would still
work 80 hours/week for 52 weeks a year in order to live well.

I feel sorry for the newbies and especially all the photography
students about to finish college about to get into this. They've
chosen a hard life for themselves.

Basically, if you're only NOW starting out in photography and you
choose this as a profession, you can basically kiss the other
really good things in life goodbye, like home ownership, health
care, family vacations, private school for the kids, etc. This is
perhaps not true for those who are either amazing business people
or amazing photographers, but they're not exactly "starting out",
either.

there was a time not so long ago when photographers, even just the
good ones, could make a good living, but lowballers have ended that
era.

Click to expand...

DON'T SAY THAT! I stumbled into self employment, blisfully unaware...I have carved out a very nice living doing what I love. I own a home, take vacations and support kids. I think there is plenty of room for talented photographers in most fields...some pay better than others, but with good personal skills and photographic talent I say go for it!

Good for you Ron, but how long have you been in it?

and what's your market?

I charge $4500+ per wedding and get it. I have been published internationally so many times its not even a challenge. My client list is ridiculous.

however, I also happen to live in the SF Bay Area. The rising cost of living alone is a huge hurdle. For the newbies here, it pretty much knocks them out. My other job is what keeps me from losing ground. You need to make 70k here just to survive.

It could be different in your area, but I'm sure things are quickly changing there, too.

Newbies have very little hope against the existing pros.

-m

Ron Gee said:

mauriceramirez said:

Ron Gee said:

It's all too frequent that I meet 'professionals' who have the
personality of a toilet seat. I'm sorry, unless you're the best
photographer in town or the universe, just being a good
photographer isn't enough. Self promotion is the key.

Click to expand...

Sad, and funny at the same time, but true.

All the low-ballers in this business pretty much killed it. I make
a lot more compared to my pj colleagues just by doing wedding and
corporate stuff. And my work isn't even as good as some of theirs.
Frankly, in order to maintain a standard of living I've gotten into
real estate. Keep in mind that I'm very good at photo, and have a
lot of industry experience and big-name contacts, but I would still
work 80 hours/week for 52 weeks a year in order to live well.

I feel sorry for the newbies and especially all the photography
students about to finish college about to get into this. They've
chosen a hard life for themselves.

Basically, if you're only NOW starting out in photography and you
choose this as a profession, you can basically kiss the other
really good things in life goodbye, like home ownership, health
care, family vacations, private school for the kids, etc. This is
perhaps not true for those who are either amazing business people
or amazing photographers, but they're not exactly "starting out",
either.

there was a time not so long ago when photographers, even just the
good ones, could make a good living, but lowballers have ended that
era.

Click to expand...

DON'T SAY THAT! I stumbled into self employment, blisfully
unaware...I have carved out a very nice living doing what I love.
I own a home, take vacations and support kids. I think there is
plenty of room for talented photographers in most fields...some pay
better than others, but with good personal skills and photographic
talent I say go for it!

Click to expand...

--
http://www.mauriceramirez.com

Location, location, location ....

A lot of it depends on where you live. If you live in an area that has corporate CEOS with daughters getting married, you can pull down $4,500 a wedding. But where I'm at, $800-$1,0000 is top dollar for a wedding.

We don't have corporate headquarters where I live. If one of the profit centers located in our area needs photo work, it's hired out of the corporate office in the big city.

Parents make $6-$8 an hour, so when they need a nice photo of the kid for grandma, they go to Wal-Mart or snap it with the little P&S digital and make an inkjet print.

When the local chamber or tourism place needs a photo for brochures, they have a photo contest and pay some amateur shooter $5 for the shot and put his name on the cover. He's thrilled, but the local stock shooter is screwed.

When a magazine has an assignment for you, they first want to know if they can just use the photo. Oh, you expected compensation? We'll talk about that after it's published.

After three years of trying to build a business, this year has been the turning point, a crushing realization that I simply can't make it. I have burned myself out trying to buy equipment that is outdated before its paid for. I would have been better off not doing all those weddings and other assignments and just watched the sunset.

It's a very tough business, especially if you are in a bad location, as I am.

Yep. You are in a Blue Collar location. Middle class folks barely making it. I'm surprised anyone will pay $1000. for a wedding in your location. Good luck!!!
--
John

mauriceramirez said:

Good for you Ron, but how long have you been in it?

Click to expand...

about 17 years

mauriceramirez said:

and what's your market?

I charge $4500+ per wedding and get it. I have been published
internationally so many times its not even a challenge. My client
list is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak to wedding photographers...I have never shot a wedding. I shoot commercial stuff, ads, brochures, etc...

mauriceramirez said:

however, I also happen to live in the SF Bay Area. The rising cost
of living alone is a huge hurdle. For the newbies here, it pretty
much knocks them out. My other job is what keeps me from losing
ground. You need to make 70k here just to survive.

It could be different in your area, but I'm sure things are quickly
changing there, too.

Newbies have very little hope against the existing pros.

Click to expand...

My earlier point was, I (and you as well) was once a newbie...we did alright, people told me over and over again how tough it was going to be, and it was tough, in fact my father was the biggest skeptic (probably why I suceeded, just to spite him).

I just feel it is no tougher or more of a long shot today than it was when we started...hell, SF and Santa Barbara were way to expensive for me to stay in in 1987!

Carl,

If it is truely what you want to do and you are willing to sacrifice other things for now, I'd stick with it.

A number of years ago I was at a point where I feard just getting by in a photo business was causing me to miss out other things. I chose to move to another direction and away from full time photography. I thought it would free me up and lead me to a career of higher income and more "things". All it made me realise was how much I enjoyed working professionally in photography and how much I missed all the aspects good and bad of such.Since then I have yet to re-establish myself as a fullltime pro, balancing living and working with my real passion of photography.

So if you truly have a passion for the business of it and have realised this, I'd say try to keep on refining your career and stick it out. If though you have found that the business side of photography is too much, then by all means move on. Most people who dabble in the business of photography find out it is not their calling. But sometimes you find it is but you sidetrack yourself from such with trying to be like all others and race for the Holy Grail. I fell into that camp and I missed out on the fact that as a pro I found my Holy Grail even if I was not getting rich. There is more to life than riches.

Carl Feather said:

Location, location, location ....

A lot of it depends on where you live. If you live in an area that
has corporate CEOS with daughters getting married, you can pull
down $4,500 a wedding. But where I'm at, $800-$1,0000 is top dollar
for a wedding.

We don't have corporate headquarters where I live. If one of the
profit centers located in our area needs photo work, it's hired out
of the corporate office in the big city.

Parents make $6-$8 an hour, so when they need a nice photo of the
kid for grandma, they go to Wal-Mart or snap it with the little P&S
digital and make an inkjet print.

When the local chamber or tourism place needs a photo for
brochures, they have a photo contest and pay some amateur shooter
$5 for the shot and put his name on the cover. He's thrilled, but
the local stock shooter is screwed.

When a magazine has an assignment for you, they first want to know
if they can just use the photo. Oh, you expected compensation?
We'll talk about that after it's published.

After three years of trying to build a business, this year has been
the turning point, a crushing realization that I simply can't make
it. I have burned myself out trying to buy equipment that is
outdated before its paid for. I would have been better off not
doing all those weddings and other assignments and just watched the
sunset.

It's a very tough business, especially if you are in a bad
location, as I am.

Click to expand...