Being a Pro Photographer Isn't What It Used To Be

[JimMcClain]

A year ago last August, Reuters fired all its No. American sports photographers. Apparently, that wasn't the end of it.

Excerpt:

Earlier this week, more members of the photography staff at Thomson Reuters were let go in the multi-national media company’s ongoing effort to downsize and focus its workforce, especially in the imaging department.

Read the whole article: Reuters Layoffs Continue as the Company Continues to Rework Its Photography Department

So, I guess becoming a freelance photographer for an organization like Reuters is off my bucket list.

Jim

 

[bratkinson]

Unfortunately, in todays business world, "Employee" is the equivalent of a 4-letter word. Why pay someone a salary; vacation, sick, and medical/vision/dental benefits; travel expenses; etc, when all that's needed these days is to either purchase a couple of sports photos from some other company that has the staff, or, have fans in the stadium email photos taken with their cell phones? Oh, and don't forget the asset acquisition costs, depreciation, insurance, etc for the camera(s) and lenses used...typically all high priced gear.

The idea of USA Today Sports Images getting -paid- for their photos makes them money. They may even turn each photographer on the payroll into a 'profit center' complete with quotas/goals of 'sold' pictures and bonuses paid thereon, blah...blah...blah...That way, the not-so-great photographers on the staff can get laid off as not making 'goals'.

Welcome to big business 101...cut costs, increase profits, increase dividends, increase executive bonuses, ad nauseum

 

[imagemaker46]

Reuters dropping all their experienced and skilled photographers to go with part time photographers to cover sports wasn't the beginning. Years ago Canadian Press wire service started dropping some of their staff and then using them as freelancers, this way they didn't have to pay any benefits. It is the nature of the business world now. Many of the photographers affected are my friends and in many cases what they lost in freelance work from Reuters was a more than half of their income. On the other side the US Today/presswire photographers don't have the same skills, and are paid far less, and in a lot of cases, aren't full time photographers so they can afford to work for less.

It all has come down to money, that's all.

 

[photoguy99]

Here's a serious question, imagemaker, and I don't even pretend to know the answer.

Has it gotten substantively easier in the last decade or two to churn out a basic level of acceptable/useful sports photos?

I can think of some changes that might make a difference. But I'm not in the biz, so I don't know if there's actually a difference, nor of it's substantive.

 

[imagemaker46]

The experienced and skilled sports photographers are still turning out the same high end images they have always put out. What has changed is that because there are a lot more photographers that have access to better gear the number of sports images has increased, in the majority of cases, they are considered acceptable. The local Jr hockey team here has two team photographers, they are both using similar gear to me, they charge $50 per game, only one gets the $50, if they both show up they split it. The images they produce are acceptable, some are pretty good, but they are laced with technical flaws, a little soft, poor crops, colours are off, crooked ice, I could go on. I went out and shot a game they were at, my images were far better. I sent a few to the team, and they wanted to use mine over the team photographers, I said no. If they want to consider using me next season I offered a proposal, and it was turned down, with the reason, we're happy with what we get already and it wouldn't be worth your while. I had not even discussed money, or what else I could offer them but better images. The fact that they were happy with "acceptable" images was all that mattered.

So to answer your question, it has become easier to produce acceptable images, only because people have lowered their own standards as to what is acceptable. Some of what I see online is garbage, even by "acceptable" standards, but they are still being used. It's not always about the money, but that is a factor these days.

 

[bribrius]

out of my realm of expertise. i will just chock it up to what i always think about these things. Digital killed photography.

 

[Gary A.]

While 'corporate' has always been profit oriented ... but now seems to exceed a fair and reasonable profit and has become 'greed' oriented. The internet has seriously and significantly fragmented the advertising dollar usually reserved ... make that guaranteed to the print media.

With reduced revenues and corporate demands of ... say ... 30% profit margins (without regards to product quality) ... something has got to give. And, typically it starts with the photo staff. There is a mindset at most news organization that the word is mightier than the art ... propagated by the editors, of which 99% started as reporters. Studies have proven that the image is remembered longer and in greater detail than the printed word. But I digress. I think with the explosion of digital photography, the ease of capture and reproduction, has greatly lowered the valued of photography.

... The idea of USA Today Sports Images getting -paid- for their photos makes them money. They may even turn each photographer on the payroll into a 'profit center' complete with quotas/goals of 'sold' pictures and bonuses paid thereon, blah...blah...blah...That way, the not-so-great photographers on the staff can get laid off as not making 'goals'.

Welcome to big business 101...cut costs, increase profits, increase dividends, increase executive bonuses, ad nauseum

It has always ... sorta ... been that way. Editors have always measured a reporters/photogs worth by "scoops" and every single day will compare your story/photos to the competitions. Even in war zones, even when you're getting your butt shot off, Editors will chastise you for missing a story or photo op. If you miss enough, if you're out-scooped by the competition enough times ... you're gone. It is very competitive at the big papers. But on the flip side, in the old days when print was making tons of money, after a decade or so of hard work, the pressure becomes less, you've paid your dues and less is expected, easier assignments, easier shifts, no midnight calls, more money, et al. When you have a decade + under your belt and you hit 50+ years ... the paper will take care of you and you become semi-retired and you'll start your day with a cup of crappy coffee and working the daily crossword puzzle in ink, chatting with other 50+-ers.

 

[KmH]

Digital has fomented a golden age of photography.

There are more photos being made now than ever before, and with the Internet, sharing those photos is easier than ever.
Digital photography has lowered the bar for what is generally and commercially considered a 'good' photograph.
Photography users now hire people to comb the photo sharing web sites for the kind of images they want.
They contact the amateur photographer about using the image knowing the amateur has no clue how much value their photograph has.

Some think the Internet is already starting to fade, with phone Apps taking over as the way to advertise.

 

[fotomonkey]

The experienced and skilled sports photographers are still turning out the same high end images they have always put out. What has changed is that because there are a lot more photographers that have access to better gear the number of sports images has increased, in the majority of cases, they are considered acceptable. The local Jr hockey team here has two team photographers, they are both using similar gear to me, they charge $50 per game, only one gets the $50, if they both show up they split it. The images they produce are acceptable, some are pretty good, but they are laced with technical flaws, a little soft, poor crops, colours are off, crooked ice, I could go on. I went out and shot a game they were at, my images were far better. I sent a few to the team, and they wanted to use mine over the team photographers, I said no. If they want to consider using me next season I offered a proposal, and it was turned down, with the reason, we're happy with what we get already and it wouldn't be worth your while. I had not even discussed money, or what else I could offer them but better images. The fact that they were happy with "acceptable" images was all that mattered.

So to answer your question, it has become easier to produce acceptable images, only because people have lowered their own standards as to what is acceptable. Some of what I see online is garbage, even by "acceptable" standards, but they are still being used. It's not always about the money, but that is a factor these days.

I've seen this as well. It's actually pretty amazing what is deemed "acceptable" these days. I kept hearing, "you have to set yourself apart" but how do you do that when the client doesn't care? I saw parents fawning over pictures that were so blurry you'd only know it was their kid because you kid almost make out the jersey number.

Likewise, people want something for nothing. I was talking to a now defunct minor league hockey team about shooting their games. Rather than hiring me per se, they offered to "pay" me with a parking pass and press access. That's it. They'd own all the images. All I'd get to do is see the game for free. They get all the benefit and I do all the work. Sadly, there are people that would accept a deal like that to get their foot in the door which just makes it harder for everyone else down the road.

 

[bribrius]

well. they can always all go shoot weddings, but they better learn up on video because it is becoming the new wedding norm.

 

[runnah]

The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.

The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.

Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.

 

[imagemaker46]

I don't blame digital cameras for the demise in paying jobs, it certainly hasn't helped in some cases. It's just a changing time in media. I know people will always argue this, but I think the best days for being a pro photographer have passed.

 

[Gary A.]

The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.

The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.

Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.

The clear majority of newspaper revenues come from advertising not sales. The sales revenues barely covered delivery costs. Sales was one of the methods to quantify circulation for advertising purposes.

This is a tough call ... I blame digital photography for lowering the standards of professional photography and maybe even photography in general.

Craigslist is the single torpedo which has cause the USS Los Angeles Times to take on serious water.

Prior to digital photography, in the genre of news/photojournalism, if you didn't have a darkroom or access to a darkroom, you didn't shoot news. There were very few darkrooms in the general population and most cameras were point & shoot. Back in the film only days an interchangeable lens camera was a unique luxury for the general population. Today, nearly every household in the first world has a digital camera (cell phone counts) and a access to a computer. Custom photography used to be reserved only for the pro and very serious amatuer, but now it is easily and cheaply available to nearly all.

By shear dilution, digital photography has affected the money making potential that was the darkroom.

 

[photoguy99]

It's not that sales is "one of the methods" it's that circulation is actually, legitimately, down. This, presumably, affects the prices that can be charged for ads.

The craigslist point is well made, though. The classifieds pulled the train at many/most/all newspapers. And they're just dead. To first order, that right there is the cause of the demise of newspapers. Craigslist isn't the only reason classifieds are dead, but it's the major one.

 

[runnah]

The problem here isn't digital cameras and photographers it's the places that employ them.

The newspaper/magazine industry is/was the bread and butter for most working pros. Like other giant industries that thought they were too big to fail they didn't move quickly enough with the times and now are very much behind or out of business. Ask any under 30 person when was the last time they bought a magazine or newspaper and I garuntee most have never bought one or it has been years since they did.

Blaming digital cameras for the demise of the paying photo jobs is asinine.

The clear majority of newspaper revenues come from advertising not sales. The sales revenues barely covered delivery costs. Sales was one of the methods to quantify circulation for advertising purposes.

This is a tough call ... I blame digital photography for lowering the standards of professional photography and maybe even photography in general.

Craigslist is the single torpedo which has cause the USS Los Angeles Times to take on serious water.

Prior to digital photography, in the genre of news/photojournalism, if you didn't have a darkroom or access to a darkroom, you didn't shoot news. There were very few darkrooms in the general population and most cameras were point & shoot. Back in the film only days an interchangeable lens camera was a unique luxury for the general population. Today, nearly every household in the first world has a digital camera (cell phone counts) and a access to a computer. Custom photography used to be reserved only for the pro and very serious amatuer, but now it is easily and cheaply available to nearly all.

By shear dilution, digital photography has affected the money making potential that was the darkroom.

Rubbish. You forget that everyone had a film camera and everyone was taking terrible photos before digital cameras. If anything digital has allowed those with more talent than money to show off their skills.

As for the news and the pure documentation aspect of it things are much better. Before you were limited to seeing only what the editors allowed you to see. Now anyone with a camera phone who happens to be a near a newsworthy event can snap a photo and get it on Twitter and into the news.

Saying the standards of what makes a good photo have been lowered is silly. The amount of skill and creativity needed to take a good photo hasn't changed.