Casey Cheung
Senior Member
...what he said...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Career in photography
- Thread starter silentjam
- Start date
Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes? 
You don't need milk delivered to your house do you? Probably not, because you (1) probably have access to a grocery store (2) you have a refrigerator in your home (3) the cost of picking up a gallon of milk at the store and taking it home is relatively cheap and very reliable since everyone in the developed nations has relatively easy access to milk.
The answer to the question that you should be asking (whether or not it's LIKELY one can make a living as an amateur") is *NO*
** Your problem is that you're a bit immature / ignorant for your age when it comes to business and finance. My advice to you is forget about photography (and anything else for that matter, unless it's joining the circus in order to save some money for college) and start reading about finance and marketing until you educate yourself because right now you're very very far behind.. so far that you don't realize that photography is almost entirely about business if you want to get paid well.
Getting paid well is more about business and less about the quality of your work or the quality of your food if you're in the food business, although it (quality) also matters.
Example: There are cameras set up on some roller coasters that take horrible poor quality photos the are purchased by the thousands at premium prices.
Example 2: McDonald's Makes far more money than the highest quality restaurants.
--------
If you want to make a lot of money in photography, it's more about *word-of-mouth, *great marketing (if applicable), your *target market, and *how you run your business... lastly, it's about your photography.
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Best of luck to you!
No, that's untrue. The market is dying because of basic business and technology realities; less people need a professional photographer to get the results that THEY want. it's that simple. People don't spend money on a Lantern and oil if they can buy a $2 LED flashlight that lasts for 5 years. You might like the quality of light that a Lantern provides, but most people couldn't care less about that. Same with cell phone cameras- people are satisfied with them because that's what they want and need, not more than that. It's that simple.
You don't need milk delivered to your house do you? Probably not, because you (1) probably have access to a grocery store (2) you have a refrigerator in your home (3) the cost of picking up a gallon of milk at the store and taking it home is relatively cheap and very reliable since everyone in the developed nations has relatively easy access to milk.
Any time you use the word "Can" it means is it possible. So yet, it's possible that a monkey can make a living with a camera. It's possible to have a sub-standard GPA and get admitted to one of the best universities in the world (especially if you developed a cure for cancer AND depression in your basement) ... but it isn't likely is it?
The answer to the question that you should be asking (whether or not it's LIKELY one can make a living as an amateur") is *NO*
Read the above answer.
Unless you know how people reporting pay on the internet came up with their figures (including sites like indeed.com and others) don't take them too serious. They misrepresent income all the time and foolish people think that they're accurate all the time when it fact they are not... and in many cases not even close.
** Your problem is that you're a bit immature / ignorant for your age when it comes to business and finance. My advice to you is forget about photography (and anything else for that matter, unless it's joining the circus in order to save some money for college) and start reading about finance and marketing until you educate yourself because right now you're very very far behind.. so far that you don't realize that photography is almost entirely about business if you want to get paid well.
Getting paid well is more about business and less about the quality of your work or the quality of your food if you're in the food business, although it (quality) also matters.
Example: There are cameras set up on some roller coasters that take horrible poor quality photos the are purchased by the thousands at premium prices.
Example 2: McDonald's Makes far more money than the highest quality restaurants.
--------
If you want to make a lot of money in photography, it's more about *word-of-mouth, *great marketing (if applicable), your *target market, and *how you run your business... lastly, it's about your photography.
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Best of luck to you!
Dusty-Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,060
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
Last edited:
D
Donald B
Guest
genius ;-) hardly think so. If photographers were genius they wold have good paying jobs.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
Electric saws and cnc machines havnt replaced any true tradesmen. if you want to succeed as a photographer you have to get over yourself and treat it like a manufacturing business. producing high quality cheap images that jo blow with a phone or a camera cant produce, its really quite simple. the problem is photographers have never been blue collar workers before so they have no idea how to be productive.
Don
Dusty-Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,060
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,003
I am referring to the best photographers in history and to me they are genius.genius ;-) hardly think so. If photographers were genius they wold have good paying jobs.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
It is a crying shame that people associate genius with bucks and not art, engineering or some exact field.
My example Josef Sudek was poor but definitely a genius of art.
I don't care about artists' net worth, I care about their work! I hope the majority does.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
A key difference is that in the past photography required a significant investment in gear and specialized skills in order to get reasonable images. This meant that the average person needed to hire a professional in order to get reasonable photos.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
One did not need to be a great artist in order to be a successful photographer. There were chains of department store photo studios that made money, without employing great artists.
The problem today is that technology has the removed the barriers, and anyone can take a photo. Thus the non-Art part of the market has dried up. Just about the only part of the market that's left is the Artistic market.
My maternity client don't hire me just to take a snapshot of their pregnancy. They can do that at home with a smart phone. They hire me because they want art.
No. If you want to be an artist, then you don't need to know business. Throughout history there have been many great artists who never did well financially. For instance, Vincent van Gogh was considered a failure during his own lifetime.
On the other hand, if you want to have a successful business, then it will be beneficial to understand business.
You can be both, but they are separate.
There are many great photographers who don't worry about business. However many of them are not trying to earn a living from photography.
Being a great artist has never been a guarantee of financial success.
We're confusing artists and craftsmen. This thread is primarily about craftsmen who's goal is to make commerce with their goods.I am referring to the best photographers in history and to me they are genius.genius ;-) hardly think so. If photographers were genius they wold have good paying jobs.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
It is a crying shame that people associate genius with bucks and not art, engineering or some exact field.
My example Josef Sudek was poor but definitely a genius of art.
I don't care about artists' net worth, I care about their work! I hope the majority does.
To be a good craftsmen you need knowledge of markets and a basic understanding of economics. To be a good artist you need self determination and a personal vision that nourishes only your own soul. Craftsmen have to nourish their bank accounts or they'll soon be as penniless as great artists.
Last edited:
Dusty-Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,060
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,003
I agree, but you are talking about craftsmen for hire and I am refering to artists. Many of them quite poor and with just one affordable camera. Check my example Josef Sudek or Vivien Maier. Sudek as many others was not being hired, he had a regular, daily job as photographer. Maier was a housekeeper and nanny. Both were poor with few gear. But they created works of art. Many more examples of course.A key difference is that in the past photography required a significant investment in gear and specialized skills in order to get reasonable images. This meant that the average person needed to hire a professional in order to get reasonable photos.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
One did not need to be a great artist in order to be a successful photographer. There were chains of department store photo studios that made money, without employing great artists.
This is great.
And that makes you a real artist unlike being simply a camera owner. You add value with your personal artistic perception and talent not just as a gear owner for rent.
Unfortunately being an artist usually meant the opposite of financial success throughout history, just like today.
I am an art photographer but I have to make my living as a business strategy advisor in a management consulting firm.
Last edited:
Dusty-Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,060
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,003
You are right. I keep forgetting about wedding, corporate, etc. photographers for rent as they never existed in a significant number in a large part of the world.We're confusing artists and craftsmen. This thread is primarily about craftsmen who's goal is to make commerce with their goods.I am referring to the best photographers in history and to me they are genius.genius ;-) hardly think so. If photographers were genius they wold have good paying jobs.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
It is a crying shame that people associate genius with bucks and not art, engineering or some exact field.
My example Josef Sudek was poor but definitely a genius of art.
I don't care about artists' net worth, I care about their work! I hope the majority does.
I think that such craftsmen will go almost extinct when the global financial system goes into a tailspin in the near future.
Last edited:
And most of those genius artists of the past or to be more precise those who we today deem as genius were often pretty poor and unsuccessful in their days unless they found some rich patron to fund their work. The modern art market is even more complicated than 50 or 100 years ago. Fine art photography is a lottery.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
Dusty-Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,060
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Absolutely.And most of those genius artists of the past or to be more precise those who we today deem as genius were often pretty poor and unsuccessful in their days unless they found some rich patron to fund their work. The modern art market is even more complicated than 50 or 100 years ago. Fine art photography is a lottery.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
Casey Cheung
Senior Member
Reminds me of that old joke:
Question: How to make a million bucks in photography?
Answer: Start off being a multi-millionaire...
Question: How to make a million bucks in photography?
Answer: Start off being a multi-millionaire...
Or be a marketing genius like Peter Lik and sell kitshy HDR pictures for horrendous amounts of money.
D
Donald B
Guest
In my town i have seen 5 really good fine art photographers give it their best shot and had plenty of money to start with and all their shops have closed.And most of those genius artists of the past or to be more precise those who we today deem as genius were often pretty poor and unsuccessful in their days unless they found some rich patron to fund their work. The modern art market is even more complicated than 50 or 100 years ago. Fine art photography is a lottery.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Starting photography or any art with learning business and finance (usually way out of the interest of art inclined people) means that we live in a very ignorant world so far, until it all moves back in place smashing the current barbaric materialism.
Let's hope photography and not bucks will once again be a photographer's key concern in the future.
Light! More light...!
Don
Most were successful because there wasn't nearly the same level of competition and saturation as there is today. Today, if you had a dollar for every photograph that looked like Ansel Adam's you'd be a millionaire in short order. The reality is that few people decades ago even cared about wet prints, enlargements, lugging a view camera up a mountainous slope at 5am and then painstakingly making prints of the results. I think we all know that. Technology has made what used to turn people off from photography, actually interesting and or at least palatable.Ain't that a shame, most genius artists and photographers of yester days were poor marketers, luckily they lived in a normal society so their work was possible. Art was not yet turned into pure industry by greedy parasites. Josef Sudek's art is a good example.Ignorant, but you're willing to learn yes?
My strong recommendation to you (and others with your question) is to go to college (or self study) and learn about business, finance, marketing, and basically how the world works etc... and THEN worry about photography. At this juncture, photography should be your least concern
Such isn't "ignorance" by default, but rather personal preference. Some painters want to study the "art" and learn the techniques of great artists... others enjoy using art as a means to an end... allowing them to put kids through university and pay off mortgages. One can argue that there's "art" in the business of art. Interesting isn't it?
There's a lot to be said for heart-stopping paintings, photographs, and drawings and while I appreciate them, they are few far and in-between as far as my eyes can tell. If your child or grandkid painted a Monet today, how much do you think s/he could sell it for? What would be the monetary worth? Very little in *most* cases because the "worth" is mostly in the equity associated with the name, not in the actual art. Try to sell an original Picasso at a flea market for $2,000 USD and it'll be there for the next 6 months. My point is that the flea-market mentality and level of appreciation is what's most prevalent in the real-world.
If you want to make money, you have to find a niche to milk; a hook. Generally speaking, no niche, no hook = no high pay.
Regards
--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum