Reading mode: Light Dark

Professional Photograger salaries and earnings (info-question)

Go to last post
Lee,

I understand your position, have been there. My field (weddings) has always had its share of people doing it for a hobby, just happy to get a buck here and there as pocket money. While the huge majority of those cant fully compete with full time pros on a service, skill and quality level, it adds a lot of "noise" to the market and possibly sets a lower expectation of what the customer can expect to pay and in the long run has a negative affect on me (full time wedding photographer) and you (breaking into a very competitive industry, possibly hoping to be successfull maybe even a full time photographer one day ) That is one of the challenges to be faced in the industry, and one of the things that means not all of us will make it.

So if more dabblers just took photos just for their own satisfaction, there may be more room for people who really want to make a go of it, like you and me. Sounds like a whinge, but it is how it is.

This is my first really quiet spring for a while. I had plenty of enquiries, but so many of them had a very unrealistic budget. I have been able to book people with a lower budget and they have upped it when they see what they can get. But people who wont give you two minutes to talk if you cant give them the world plus negatives for less than $1000???? Where do they get those expectations? I did a search on the internet for photogs in my town, in the top ten in the search, seven were offering below $1000, (most were not good, obviously ametures, but the figures speak louder than the pictures sometimes)

Adapt? Well if I cant get the money I need doing photography, I will just find another job. The customer is not always right. There is a bottom dollar somewhere, unfortuneately people doing it for fun will keep driving that down. True they are not competing directly with me, but there is a flow on effect.
a.
LeeBase said:
LeeBase said:
Actually he said lowballers destroyed part of the industry
(editorial photography) so he's giving out his rates to encourage
lowballers to raise prices.
Click to expand...
Yeah...and now, instead of merely bitching about it...he's doing
something to help. "Hey folks...guess what your work is
worth...here's what you can get if you just ask for it".
LeeBase said:
I doubt you'd listen to him anymore
than you listened to anyone else here.
Click to expand...
I listen. I just don't equate agreeing with listening. And, fwiw,
I'm not a "low baller" but a "bottom feeder" -- someone who
services the low end of the market because that's where my
experience puts me.

As my experience grows, folks like this guy who shares his rates
will be very helpful in my raising mine.
LeeBase said:
After all you have a real
job and if photographers see their businesses die because of you,
it's their fault!
Click to expand...
Yep...and if the car salesman can't make a buck because I
researched on the internet before walking into his showroom...I
don't shed a tear for him either.

If you can lose business to a part timer with a digital camera and
a whopping 4 weddings under his belt -- then you gotta problem.
You can ***** and whine all you want, but economic realities are
what they are.

If you make your money servicing the bottom part of the market, the
one that's the most price sensitive -- then you get what comes with
the territory.
LeeBase said:
The market has dictated poverty for everyone but
you, so they ough to just shut up and accept it.
Click to expand...
No, by all means....spit into the wind. I hear it's real helpful.
LeeBase said:
Tell us, lee,
when the industry you work in full time decides to reduce
everyone's wage to $7 an hour and you lose your home and your kids
starve, will you say the kids deserved to die because that's
capitalism and it works; or will you fight for your human dignity
and the lives of your loved ones?
Click to expand...
Fight in ways that make sense. Complaining gets you nothing.
Observe and adapt. Our CIO talked to us, and in an unusual move,
was very upfront about the future of IT at the company. 80% of the
companies IT budget was spent on maintenance....and they want more
of their IT dollars spent on new business enhancing initiatives.
So they are outsourcing as much of that maintenance work as they
can, in order to have more resources for new work. Now you can
complain, and try to drag your feet -- or you can adapt and move
your career to the new development side of the house.

If you've been a mainframe developer for 25 years in the company --
working on the same project for the last 10 years....you need to be
worried.....he says.

I appreciated his honesty. Whether we lose our jobs because he
outsourced them....or whether we lose our jobs because a competing
company eats our lunch because we refused to do what it takes to
lower our costs -- either way, we lose our jobs. So take note of
what's "going away" and what's "going forward" and get your butt
into the "going forward" side of the equation.

You think photographers are immune from the laws of economics? Go
talk to the family farmers. Shooting the messenger won't help you.
Rather you observe and adapt.

Lee
Click to expand...
 
What can we do if people stop valuing good photography? I KNOW that I can't produce what my friend does who owns his own studio and has many photographers working for him. His weddings go from $5,000 to $15,000 and more. The output looks like something from Life magazine. They are truly stunning.

There's just no way I can do what they do. I'd need better equipment. A lot more talent. A handful of assistants. Etc.

But what if folks start deciding that "ok" is good enough for them? What can you do? On another forum I've been beaten up for liking digital. "Digital looks fake" the film pro says. "But it's good enough for me". "pish posh" the film pro says.

And he's probably right. He probably can spot a digital print a mile away. But what does it matter if the clients can't tell the difference -- or in seeing the difference say "digital is good enough for me"? I shot a wedding with a Nikon Coolpix 990, a 3mp digi-cam and the folks really liked the photos....but I'm sure they wouldn't come close to a film SLR, or a digital SLR (which I now have)

I was marveling at a co-worker's family photo. It was not artistic. It was rather "run of the mill" -- done at JC Penny's for $30 for a whole set of photos. How can I compete with that? I can't. Even I who is not all that experienced at portraiture could probably do better -- but not for $30...it's not worth my time.

I was complimenting the "bokeh" on the photo and he tells me the backdrop was out of focus. How cool. You don't even need good lenses, just set at f8 and use a backdrop that makes it look like you had a decent lens.

How do photo labs compete with Sam's club doing prints for $.17 each? I don't know.

Technology is changing the market place. It lowers the cost of entry enabling more people to hang out their shingle. It allows some companies to do great volume with very narrow profit margins. It really puts the squeeze on certain parts of the industry.

But like always, there will be ways to not only survive, but to thrive. You just can't count on doing it in the way you used to. You have to learn to "up sell" your clients -- to show them the difference in what they get for paying for you.

But for sure, there will be some folks who see your $3000 wedding, recognize it as better than the $1000 guy, and yet think "well, for $2000 in my pocket I can be happy with the cheaper guy".

Just as I'm sure that back in the day, a hand crafted car was of better quality than on of the ford model T's that was made on an assembly line.

BTW, I had NO IDEA the state of the photography business when I decided to make my investment in equipment. I was just a hobbyist who liked taking pictures who had done a few weddings as favors because I was the "guy with a camera" that took pictures at church events that people liked.

I'm feeling the squeeze in my own career, as I've mentioned, and it seemed like photography was a job you couldn't outsource. And when I came into some money, I made the investment selling my wife on the concept that I would at least be able to make the money back in 2 years.

And I will. But now that I'm working at this, and learning, and reading, and participating on the forums -- I find that the photography profession is under a LOT of pressure right now. I never HAD any intentions of going into it full time, but I certainly wouldn't try to now.

As a side gig, doing half a dozen weddings a year -- it'll keep me in nice equipment. My hats off to the folks putting their kids through college in this field.

Lee
 
LeeBase said:
Yep...and if the car salesman can't make a buck because I
researched on the internet before walking into his showroom...I
don't shed a tear for him either.
Click to expand...
You are not dumb enough to believe there's ANY relevance in that story, are you? Look, if you refuse to pay what a car salesman wants, he tells you to go away and you get no car. So you can research all you want, but you won't deprive some car guy of his job because you refuse to pay what he needs to pay the car maker for the car and operate his very capital intensive business.

It's not like the dealer down the street can or will lowball him..they all have the same costs because they have to buy that car from GM, Ford, toyota, etc.
LeeBase said:
If you can lose business to a part timer with a digital camera and
a whopping 4 weddings under his belt -- then you gotta problem.
You can ***** and whine all you want, but economic realities are
what they are.
Click to expand...
I stopped doing weddings after I graduated from college 5 years ago. So no, you're no threat to me, but I sympathise with other small businessmen who do.
LeeBase said:
Fight in ways that make sense. Complaining gets you nothing.
Observe and adapt. Our CIO talked to us, and in an unusual move,
was very upfront about the future of IT at the company. 80% of the
companies IT budget was spent on maintenance....and they want more
of their IT dollars spent on new business enhancing initiatives.
So they are outsourcing as much of that maintenance work as they
can, in order to have more resources for new work. Now you can
complain, and try to drag your feet -- or you can adapt and move
your career to the new development side of the house.

If you've been a mainframe developer for 25 years in the company --
working on the same project for the last 10 years....you need to be
worried.....he says.

I appreciated his honesty. Whether we lose our jobs because he
outsourced them....or whether we lose our jobs because a competing
company eats our lunch because we refused to do what it takes to
lower our costs -- either way, we lose our jobs. So take note of
what's "going away" and what's "going forward" and get your butt
into the "going forward" side of the equation.

You think photographers are immune from the laws of economics? Go
talk to the family farmers. Shooting the messenger won't help you.
Rather you observe and adapt.

Lee
Click to expand...
My god, he IS that stupid!

Look, I don't need to earn a penny from Photography. Half my income comes from Graphic design, an area that isn't beset with amateurs trying to do it to pay for their equipment. Can you imagine someone buying a $700 copy if Indesign to do advertising design as a hobby...LOL. I was smart enough to learn to do other things than photography to earn a living because I knew even as a young student that the photo market was going down thanks to guys who feel some need to pay for their hobby by becoming "Pros". And even if graphics died as a profession, my family has some money so I really never have had to work. I choose to because I didn't like the idea of living off other people's work. So I worked retail, as a lab tech and a manager then started my graphics and photo business. But if push comes to shove, my family can guarantee me an income. What will you do Lee? Let your kids starve since that's the way the market works? Of course you will.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
Christopher Crawford said:
You are not dumb enough to believe there's ANY relevance in that
story, are you?
Click to expand...
Why I sho be dat dumb. Uh huh. Here's the relevance. Car salesman are finding that technology is changing the equation of their livlihood. Since folks have access to information that they didn't use to, then they negotiate better deals. Plus, they can shop around in minutes online.

It is easy to see the car salesman complaining about how dealers who are putting their prices online and competing on price are "ruining the business". How can a car salesman make an honest $4,000 on the sale of a car when other folks are giving the info away that allows consumers to push for $500 over invoice.
Christopher Crawford said:
Look, if you refuse to pay what a car salesman
wants, he tells you to go away and you get no car.
Click to expand...
Same with photography. Only YOU, the photographer, are the car salesman. And your client is saying "well, I see on the internet that there are 5 guys in the area doing weddings for $1000 and the include the digital files in their package".

Isn't that what we're talking about? The new digital guys and their low rates and including the files as part of their package -- and how that's "ruining the business of photography"?
Christopher Crawford said:
So you can
research all you want, but you won't deprive some car guy of his
job because you refuse to pay what he needs to pay the car maker
for the car and operate his very capital intensive business.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. You force him to compete on price. He may say "I won't sell you this car for that price"...and you say...ok, I'll go down the street. I had this exact conversation when I bought my car. I took a test drive, drove it home for the wife to take it for a spin around the neighboorhood, and while she did that, I went on the net.

I went back to the dealer, who was asking $21,000 for the car and offered $14,000 . "Where's that number come from" -- from the internet. "Well you can't buy this car on the internet. " True, but then I hand him the print out of 5 other cars of the same make, year and mileage and say -- but I can buy anyone of these. I walked out with the car for $14,500.

Now he could have refused to sell me the car -- just as you can refuse to do someone's wedding -- but that just means the business goes to the guy down the street.
Christopher Crawford said:
It's not like the dealer down the street can or will lowball
him..they all have the same costs because they have to buy that car
from GM, Ford, toyota, etc.
Click to expand...
You're wrong on that. Dealers do compete with each other. The dealer won't sell a car for a loss -- but they will sell the car for a lot less "profit in their pockets"....which sqeezes the sales guy who makes his nut on the profit of his sales.
Christopher Crawford said:
Look, I don't need to earn a penny from Photography. Half my
income comes from Graphic design, an area that isn't beset with
amateurs trying to do it to pay for their equipment.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? There are ameteur people all over that market.
Christopher Crawford said:
Can you
imagine someone buying a $700 copy if Indesign to do advertising
design as a hobby...LOL.
Click to expand...
They can use an older copy. They can use pirated software. They can use other products. They can use the copy from their jobs for doing their own side work. But lets for a moment join your dreamland. What you have just described is a "barrier to entry". The high (and let's face it, it's not THAT high) cost of the equipment to do a job, and the difficulty of learning the skill -- keeps competitors out.

When prices drop, when it becomes easier to gain the skill, then the barrier is lowered and you have more people to contend with.

Which is what the photography industry is dealing with.

And seeing as how I bought the most powerful computer I ever had -- for $625 -- and gave it to my kids for their schoolwork -- you're dreaming if you think your computer graphic design profession isn't vulerable. Your main vulnerability is coming from the internet, where someone can hire a phillipino or any other country to do graphics work.
Christopher Crawford said:
What will you do Lee? Let your kids starve since
that's the way the market works? Of course you will.
Click to expand...
You know...by choosing to do graphics work, you take work away from other graphics professionals. If you would just quit and go live in the mountains and grow your own food -- somebody else could have your clients so that they could feed their families.

We all participate in the economy, as consumers and producers, and we all do so for the best interest of our own families.

Lee
 
I've read a few of the posts here. Many seem to stress optimism by marketing. That's true to a degree. But in my experience, around $24K is a very accurate median salary.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of photographers earn very little, probably in the $10K to $30K range. A handful make a true living, say the $30K to $80K range. A very, very few make more than that. So, when you average it all out - you're talking about a $24K average.

The PPA's statistics of its own members mirrors the findings of the Department of Labor. My own experiences and talking with many people in the profession also mirrors this result.

One previous post mentioned that a $100K salary is easily attainable in a small town within a few years with a smart marketing plan. This is really 'pie in the sky' to me. That IS easily attainable in gross sales, but you'd have to make in the $300K and higher range in gross sales to earn a $100K salary. And the simple fact is, very few photographers manage that level.

And keep in mind that most photographers have to tote their own benefits like health care, which is ridiculous for the entrepeneur in the U.S.

No one should EXPECT to get rich at photography. You should try your best, but I only advise people to enter the field of professional photography if:

1) They have a true passion for photography.
2) The passion outweighs the need for wealth.
3) They enter with a solid business plan.
4) They have a deep-rooted desire to be self-employed.
5) They are tough and willing to stick it out for many years.
6) They are willing to work MUCH harder than a standard 9-5 job.

Jim Herndon
http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/
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...
 
Dennis Collins said:
I've been a professional photographer for 25+ years. Weddings,
families, senior portraits in a medium price range in rural
Washington. My net income varies year to year, but about
$30k-$40k, which is slightly above average for the incomes in my
area. I'm not getting rich off photography, but I enjoy what I do
and live quite well. It's a quality of life and attitute toward
life.

I never get out of bed thinking, "I wish I didn't have to go to
work today" as I did working for others before I became a
phototgrapher. I'm self emplyed, no employees and my wife doen't
help in the business. In fact she doesn't work so it is possible
to raise a family on a single income.

My house and cars are paid for. I have a 1000sq ft studio attached
to the house; my morning commute is a short walk. My advise to
beginning photographs is give great service and learn to manage
your money wisely.
Accept that photography is a seasonal business and adjust your
lifestyle. I work hard July-Nov and hardly work Jan-May. And
that's ok. Don't spend all the fall income on new stuff and it'll
get you through the winter.

I like the European attitude towards work and vacation. When I sit
down in January to reflect on the previous year and plan my
marketing for next year, my goal is no longer to increase my gross
by x% or increase weddings by x#, it' to increase my vacation time
to 6 weeks a year-usually 3wks in Feb-Mar and 3 in May or June, or
to increase time spent with my daughter.
--
Dennis
Click to expand...
 
Hi Bob,

Photographers, just like anyone else, do get audited if their tax statements look suspicious. Reporting 30% of your true income is illegal, immoral, and also VERY stupid.

Yes, there are photographers (I know some) that play with the numbers, but not to even close to the percentage you estimate. My guess is that you might be correct in that some of the top tier of photographers do not report 100% of their income, and therefore skew the numbers slightly. But the truth is that the vast majority of photographers do earn slightly less or more than the average cited by the Department of Labor.

Also, on the portrait end of photography - very few customers pay with cash. On the commercial end, probably no one does. Journalism and stock, ditto. Some do try to 'hide the cash', but it's a small percentage of what is actually handled by most photo businesses.

Jim Herndon
BobMcCarthy said:
Being the cynic that I find myself today, I would answer that this
is the income reported to uncle sam if we're speaking USA. Small
business owners write off everything they touch and of course cash
doesn't count. I almost bought a small business some time back and
frankly the underground part totally scared me away.

My guess (and it's a guess) is the income reported is maybe 25 to
30 % of comparable income. My guess is no one will respond to this
post.

Bob
Click to expand...
 
I would like to add that a good degree of talent is also necessary now to go with that marketing. That is to make a living, not a killing.
a
Jim Herndon said:
The simple fact is that the vast majority of photographers earn
very little, probably in the $10K to $30K range. A handful make a
true living, say the $30K to $80K range. A very, very few make more
than that. So, when you average it all out - you're talking about a
$24K average.

The PPA's statistics of its own members mirrors the findings of the
Department of Labor. My own experiences and talking with many
people in the profession also mirrors this result.

One previous post mentioned that a $100K salary is easily
attainable in a small town within a few years with a smart
marketing plan. This is really 'pie in the sky' to me. That IS
easily attainable in gross sales, but you'd have to make in the
$300K and higher range in gross sales to earn a $100K salary. And
the simple fact is, very few photographers manage that level.

And keep in mind that most photographers have to tote their own
benefits like health care, which is ridiculous for the entrepeneur
in the U.S.

No one should EXPECT to get rich at photography. You should try
your best, but I only advise people to enter the field of
professional photography if:

1) They have a true passion for photography.
2) The passion outweighs the need for wealth.
3) They enter with a solid business plan.
4) They have a deep-rooted desire to be self-employed.
5) They are tough and willing to stick it out for many years.
6) They are willing to work MUCH harder than a standard 9-5 job.

Jim Herndon
http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/
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...
Click to expand...
 
Nobody likes to pay income taxes. All self employed persons are likely to pay themselves as little "salary" as possible to minimize the tax bite.

So much economic value of a photographers work is not in the form of salary, but in the form of business expensed items ( company car, equipment, etc. ) and retained earnings in their business.

Personally I'm quite happy to draw a "salary" from my business which is the minimum required to pay my living expenses and not a penny more.

The rest of the business profit can be allowed to accrue as retained earnings in the business at little or no tax.

And also my business pays for many expenses which a normal employee pays for themselves ... car, insurance, travel, etc. So I enjoy the same standard of living as my neighbors but on half the income.

So I'd suspect that even if the average earnings that photographers pay tax on is $24,000 the actual value they receive from their business is twice that. Salary ain't everything, but a good accountant is !!!!

JSJ
 
LeeBase said:
Same with photography. Only YOU, the photographer, are the car
salesman. And your client is saying "well, I see on the internet
that there are 5 guys in the area doing weddings for $1000 and the
include the digital files in their package".

Isn't that what we're talking about? The new digital guys and
their low rates and including the files as part of their package --
and how that's "ruining the business of photography"?

The difference is the volume.
Click to expand...
These "new digital guys" are not pros, they CANNOT make a living on those prices, it is barely worth doing at those rates. IF they could get 4 or 5 weddings a week they may stand a chance but they would be working 80 hrs and be very efficient in marketing. Your internet car dealers can sell several a day so each one doesnt need to net as much. The other side of the coin is volume of people doing it, this means that rather than the 4 a week minimum you need to get, you only get 10 or 20 a year.

How it ruins the business is this, pro photographers lose business down stream, eventually go out of business leaving only part time photographers with little experience, not enough time to do good service and a small turnover. As passionate as you can be as a part timer, you cannot live photography fully and give the client 100% with a full time job on the side. I am not saying this as an attack on part timers, I was one only three years ago so I know what I am talking about.

The next step in ruining the business is the higher turnover in the field. After doing part time photography for a little while, getting better, maybe busier, you realise you cant handle both jobs so one has to go. Usually it is the photography for financial reasons. Also many will get sick of it anyway usually because of all the hard work for little pay, which brings it round again, next step the experience level of the part timers goes down and so on.

Best case scenario, a few good full timers getting good money, a few dedicated part timers on their way

Worst case, (esp weddings) photography being dominated by people wanting a bit of extra pocket money to pay for their gear with their skill and knowledge being what they could find out on the internet forums.

The solution? Well thats a challenge to us all. Client education, not sure how, photographer certification (theres a whole new subject). In the building industry here, it is illegal to carry on business without a builders licence which ensures qualification, should we do that in our industry?
 
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...
 
Miodragj,

I would not ever be able to tell if anyone can :make it: from just a portfolio...that said...I really like your syle of lighting, it is very clean and shows wonderful technical skill. Just my opinion, but, I would think you should be able to get a foot in the door with what you have...good luck!
miodragj said:
I would like to hear opinion of some more optimistically oriented
person.
I live in Eastern Europe, but maybe because of some family reason
relocate in USA in year or something like that.
What are you think, what chance I have, according to my gallery?
(That is only very small part of my portfolio, and mostly IT stuff.)
I do very successfully here a lot of other things like portraits,
landscapes, fashion etc, but those are directly connected to studio
light I use.

Thanks a lot!
Ron Gee said:
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...
--
------------------------
Regards.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Ron!
Ron Gee said:
Miodragj,

I would not ever be able to tell if anyone can :make it: from just
a portfolio...that said...I really like your syle of lighting, it
is very clean and shows wonderful technical skill. Just my
opinion, but, I would think you should be able to get a foot in the
door with what you have...good luck!
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me that most of this has been about a pro who owns their own business. But what about those pro photographers who have a job at a newspaper for magazine?
jacque st.jacques said:
Nobody likes to pay income taxes. All self employed persons are
likely to pay themselves as little "salary" as possible to minimize
the tax bite.

So much economic value of a photographers work is not in the form
of salary, but in the form of business expensed items ( company
car, equipment, etc. ) and retained earnings in their business.

Personally I'm quite happy to draw a "salary" from my business
which is the minimum required to pay my living expenses and not a
penny more.

The rest of the business profit can be allowed to accrue as
retained earnings in the business at little or no tax.

And also my business pays for many expenses which a normal employee
pays for themselves ... car, insurance, travel, etc. So I enjoy the
same standard of living as my neighbors but on half the income.

So I'd suspect that even if the average earnings that photographers
pay tax on is $24,000 the actual value they receive from their
business is twice that. Salary ain't everything, but a good
accountant is !!!!

JSJ
Click to expand...
--
R Schutt
 
You are absolutely correct with your "reasons" to want to get into the photography biz. You more than lilkey won't get rich but it is a rewarding way to make a decent living so long as you don't mind busting your hump. And you are also correct about gross sales vs. a 100k salary. Someone who is looking to make over 100k in profit must be able to generate over 300k and closer to 400k in revenue AND be able to keep expenses at bay.

On another note... The reason people will always hire professional photographers is for the simple reason that we can take a better photograph than they can. Now it's our job to show them the value of what we do AND why it's worth what we charge. Sometimes photographers forget that our clients are not buying square inches of photographic paper. If they were, they would get a way better price if they bought it from Kodak! People buy what is on the paper, how it helps them solve their need and the experience of how they made / received it.

The ultimate goal? To make a good buck, be proud of and enjoy what we do and have a happy client that feels what you do is worth what they paid for it.

Just food for thought....

Bob
Jim Herndon said:
The simple fact is that the vast majority of photographers earn
very little, probably in the $10K to $30K range. A handful make a
true living, say the $30K to $80K range. A very, very few make more
than that. So, when you average it all out - you're talking about a
$24K average.

The PPA's statistics of its own members mirrors the findings of the
Department of Labor. My own experiences and talking with many
people in the profession also mirrors this result.

One previous post mentioned that a $100K salary is easily
attainable in a small town within a few years with a smart
marketing plan. This is really 'pie in the sky' to me. That IS
easily attainable in gross sales, but you'd have to make in the
$300K and higher range in gross sales to earn a $100K salary. And
the simple fact is, very few photographers manage that level.

And keep in mind that most photographers have to tote their own
benefits like health care, which is ridiculous for the entrepeneur
in the U.S.

No one should EXPECT to get rich at photography. You should try
your best, but I only advise people to enter the field of
professional photography if:

1) They have a true passion for photography.
2) The passion outweighs the need for wealth.
3) They enter with a solid business plan.
4) They have a deep-rooted desire to be self-employed.
5) They are tough and willing to stick it out for many years.
6) They are willing to work MUCH harder than a standard 9-5 job.

Jim Herndon
http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/
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...
Click to expand...
--
Thanks,

Bob
 
R Schutt said:
It seems to me that most of this has been about a pro who owns
their own business. But what about those pro photographers who have
a job at a newspaper for magazine?
Click to expand...
Most photographers are self emplyed because few companies hire photographers as full time staffers. daily newspapers are one of the few types of companies that still do, but most require a journalism degree. The two local papers where i live both require that; a bachelors in journalism to be a photographer. I have a fine art degree with photo major and am not 'qualified' to work for them, although interestingly their advertising departments hire me all the time (they use commercial photographers for that instead of regular staffers) and the two papers are partners in a local magazine that I am a staffer for. Strange, huh? Since there are not a lot of daily papers left there are few open jobs in journalism anyway and few professional photographers have any formal education at all, and most of us who do majored in commercial photography or fine art instead of journalism.

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
LeeBase said:
reading, and participating on the forums -- I find that the
photography profession is under a LOT of pressure right now. I
never HAD any intentions of going into it full time, but I
certainly wouldn't try to now.
Click to expand...
Well, thirty years ago there were those making exactly the same comments. And you know what? Talented people willing to work at it continued to do just fine and many of the whiners about low-baller hung it up. Some things just never change.
 
magazines rarely have full-time photographers on staff, btw. While newspukes aren't spending much on gear and they sometimes even get a little stipend, they get few benefits, don't own any of their images, and often get treated as the low man in the newsroom.

consider that on average, they're among the most talented shooters to begin with, so it's a really bad deal. the habits from that industry were the ones who started the whole downslide for everyone else, and especially the AP stringers.

I have the utmost respect for some of them as individual photographers. But as a niche group in the business sense news & agency pj's are very naive. Nearly all the bad usage deals and low rate practices find their origins somewhere with pj's who shoot a lot of highly desireable images, giving their stuff away for nothing. For example, since practiacally credentialed at the Olympics owns their shots--they were all tossing up some the most highly sought-after pics in the world taken in those two weeks! Thousands of (rather exceptional) images flooding the market!

Sorry about the rant. The question was how much: Here in a major metro market newspaper pj's get about $35K-55K/year.

Nice gear they get though.

-m
Christopher Crawford said:
R Schutt said:
It seems to me that most of this has been about a pro who owns
their own business. But what about those pro photographers who have
a job at a newspaper for magazine?
Click to expand...
Most photographers are self emplyed because few companies hire
photographers as full time staffers. daily newspapers are one of
the few types of companies that still do, but most require a
journalism degree. The two local papers where i live both require
that; a bachelors in journalism to be a photographer. I have a
fine art degree with photo major and am not 'qualified' to work for
them, although interestingly their advertising departments hire me
all the time (they use commercial photographers for that instead of
regular staffers) and the two papers are partners in a local
magazine that I am a staffer for. Strange, huh? Since there are
not a lot of daily papers left there are few open jobs in
journalism anyway and few professional photographers have any
formal education at all, and most of us who do majored in
commercial photography or fine art instead of journalism.

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.mauriceramirez.com
 
Forgive me for being an ignoramus but what do you mean by not owning any of the images. That means the newspaper owns all the rights to the image and can use it however they want, right? Hmmm...
mauriceramirez said:
consider that on average, they're among the most talented shooters
to begin with, so it's a really bad deal. the habits from that
industry were the ones who started the whole downslide for everyone
else, and especially the AP stringers.

I have the utmost respect for some of them as individual
photographers. But as a niche group in the business sense news &
agency pj's are very naive. Nearly all the bad usage deals and low
rate practices find their origins somewhere with pj's who shoot a
lot of highly desireable images, giving their stuff away for
nothing. For example, since practiacally credentialed at the
Olympics owns their shots--they were all tossing up some the most
highly sought-after pics in the world taken in those two weeks!
Thousands of (rather exceptional) images flooding the market!

Sorry about the rant. The question was how much: Here in a major
metro market newspaper pj's get about $35K-55K/year.

Nice gear they get though.

-m
Christopher Crawford said:
R Schutt said:
It seems to me that most of this has been about a pro who owns
their own business. But what about those pro photographers who have
a job at a newspaper for magazine?
Click to expand...
Most photographers are self emplyed because few companies hire
photographers as full time staffers. daily newspapers are one of
the few types of companies that still do, but most require a
journalism degree. The two local papers where i live both require
that; a bachelors in journalism to be a photographer. I have a
fine art degree with photo major and am not 'qualified' to work for
them, although interestingly their advertising departments hire me
all the time (they use commercial photographers for that instead of
regular staffers) and the two papers are partners in a local
magazine that I am a staffer for. Strange, huh? Since there are
not a lot of daily papers left there are few open jobs in
journalism anyway and few professional photographers have any
formal education at all, and most of us who do majored in
commercial photography or fine art instead of journalism.

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.mauriceramirez.com
Click to expand...
--
R Schutt
 
R Schutt said:
Forgive me for being an ignoramus but what do you mean by not
owning any of the images. That means the newspaper owns all the
rights to the image and can use it however they want, right? Hmmm...
Click to expand...
Yep, that's what he meant. Most newspapers own the full rights to the images their regular staff photographer make; it's work for hire.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top