20 Myths About Becoming A Professional...

[PhotoWrangler]

I want to continue to love what I do.... If I had to invest that much time, effort, and money into it, I probably wouldn't enjoy it anymore.

I jumped in head first, came on like hell fire as one of my friends put it, pushed myself to learn 10 years of knowledge in 2, read, read, read, researched, researched, researched, practiced, practiced, and practiced. I listened to every photographer, every mentor, every speaker, every whoever I could. I asked questioned, I picked brains, and I did whatever I could to get the information I needed. I created pricing, learned about marketing and advertising, got a website, a twitter name, a facebook page. I printed business cards. I bought equipment. I taught myself Lightroom, and CS5. I attended conferences and seminars. You name it, I did it. And you know what..... I'm tired.

In fact, I've began shooting film and making my own prints in my darkroom again, because I'm burned out. I found myself not enjoying photography as much. I had to back off. Film has opened up the avenues of creativity again. I am having to think, and use my hands, and my fingers smell like fixer again. I now second shoot weddings as I used to, and I edit other photographers work for extra money... but I am no longer chasing the dream of being a full time photographer.

 

[BlairWright]

Awesome, I love it and it's totally accurate...

Thanks!

 

[Destin]

I don't know about #19 being a myth. In fact, my school provided a study regarding photography jobs and it is estimated within the next few years that there will be more jobs than photographers. #6 is also a tad confusing.

I would have to call bull on that study. There is NO way that there will be more photography jobs than photographers anytime soon, if ever again. They are skewing the numbers there somehow, I'd be willing to bet on it. After all, if a college admits that the jobs aren't there, who is going to pay them to get the degree? My guess is that their definition of a photographer, for the purpose of the study requires that an individual hold a photography degree to be a photographer.

 

[MissCream]

I would have to call bull on that study. There is NO way that there will be more photography jobs than photographers anytime soon, if ever again. They are skewing the numbers there somehow, I'd be willing to bet on it. After all, if a college admits that the jobs aren't there, who is going to pay them to get the degree? My guess is that their definition of a photographer, for the purpose of the study requires that an individual hold a photography degree to be a photographer.

Agreed!

 

[Ballistics]

I don't know about #19 being a myth. In fact, my school provided a study regarding photography jobs and it is estimated within the next few years that there will be more jobs than photographers. #6 is also a tad confusing.

I would have to call bull on that study. There is NO way that there will be more photography jobs than photographers anytime soon, if ever again. They are skewing the numbers there somehow, I'd be willing to bet on it. After all, if a college admits that the jobs aren't there, who is going to pay them to get the degree? My guess is that their definition of a photographer, for the purpose of the study requires that an individual hold a photography degree to be a photographer.

Calling bull and actually doing research about it are 2 different things. I don't know if a state school would actually make their stats up and the degree aspect was not apart of their research.

 

[MTVision]

"Photographers can expect keen competition for job openings because the work is attractive to many people. The number of individuals interested in positions as commercial and news photographers usually is much greater than the number of openings. Those who succeed in landing a salaried job or attracting enough work to earn a living by freelancing are likely to be adept at operating a business and to be among the most creative, able to find and exploit the new opportunities available from rapidly changing technologies. Related work experience, job-related training, or some unique skill or talent—such as a background in computers or electronics—also are beneficial to prospective photographers.

Employment of photographers is expected to increase about as fast as the average for all occupations through 2014. Demand for portrait photographers should increase as the population grows. Growth of Internet versions of magazines, journals, and newspapers will require increasing numbers of commercial photographers to provide digital images. The Internet also should make it easier for freelancers to market directly to their customers, increasing opportunities for self-employment.

Job growth, however, will be constrained somewhat by the widespread use of digital photography and the falling price of digital equipment. Improvements in digital technology reduce barriers of entry into this profession and allow more individual consumers and businesses to produce, store, and access photographic images on their own. Declines in the newspaper industry also will reduce demand for photographers to provide still images for print. Salaried jobs in particular may be difficult to find as more companies contract with freelancers rather than hire their own photographers."

Above quote taken from collegegrad.com

 

[Ballistics]

Thanks MTVision - So according to that source, it depends on the type of photographer you want to be that will determine job opportunities.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I don't know about #19 being a myth. In fact, my school provided a study regarding photography jobs and it is estimated within the next few years that there will be more jobs than photographers. #6 is also a tad confusing.

I would have to call bull on that study. There is NO way that there will be more photography jobs than photographers anytime soon, if ever again. They are skewing the numbers there somehow, I'd be willing to bet on it. After all, if a college admits that the jobs aren't there, who is going to pay them to get the degree? My guess is that their definition of a photographer, for the purpose of the study requires that an individual hold a photography degree to be a photographer.

Calling bull and actually doing research about it are 2 different things.

I have to agree with this. You are, what? 19 or something? What kind of research are you basing your BS on?

Probably what you read here and that is not the best thing to do. Learn to think for yourself and analyse the data. Said data tells me that TODAY there are a million photogs willing to work for nothing. Life experience tells me that no one can pay the bills working for nothing. So, how long before that million photogs goes on to another life calling? A couple years.

And in that couple years a lot of the pro retail photogs worth their salt will have moved on to other areas of photography or will have retired from photography, therefore leaving the field wide open. Novelty never lasts very long.

 

[12sndsgood]

I would have to call bull on that study. There is NO way that there will be more photography jobs than photographers anytime soon, if ever again. They are skewing the numbers there somehow, I'd be willing to bet on it. After all, if a college admits that the jobs aren't there, who is going to pay them to get the degree? My guess is that their definition of a photographer, for the purpose of the study requires that an individual hold a photography degree to be a photographer.

Calling bull and actually doing research about it are 2 different things.

I have to agree with this. You are, what? 19 or something? What kind of research are you basing your BS on?

Probably what you read here and that is not the best thing to do. Learn to think for yourself and analyse the data. Said data tells me that TODAY there are a million photogs willing to work for nothing. Life experience tells me that no one can pay the bills working for nothing. So, how long before that million photogs goes on to another life calling? A couple years.

And in that couple years a lot of the pro retail photogs worth their salt will have moved on to other areas of photography or will have retired from photography, therefore leaving the field wide open. Novelty never lasts very long.

true, but as the population increases and the digital costs lower and become even more available. as soon as those millions of "photographers" go on to another calling there will be another million or more right behind them willing to give it a go. its easy to go awhile as a "photographer" if your holding a regular daytime job.


they say statistics can be easily skewed to give you the results you want to look at. i would imagine that the study based there findings off of established photographers on some level and might not have included the millions of facebook photographers who are now giving out their services. i mean you could base your numbers on businesses who have a business id allot easier then just counting every joes facebook photography outfit working without a valid liscence or taxes or any of the sort.

 

[Destin]

I would have to call bull on that study. There is NO way that there will be more photography jobs than photographers anytime soon, if ever again. They are skewing the numbers there somehow, I'd be willing to bet on it. After all, if a college admits that the jobs aren't there, who is going to pay them to get the degree? My guess is that their definition of a photographer, for the purpose of the study requires that an individual hold a photography degree to be a photographer.

Calling bull and actually doing research about it are 2 different things.

I have to agree with this. You are, what? 19 or something? What kind of research are you basing your BS on?

Probably what you read here and that is not the best thing to do. Learn to think for yourself and analyse the data. Said data tells me that TODAY there are a million photogs willing to work for nothing. Life experience tells me that no one can pay the bills working for nothing. So, how long before that million photogs goes on to another life calling? A couple years.

And in that couple years a lot of the pro retail photogs worth their salt will have moved on to other areas of photography or will have retired from photography, therefore leaving the field wide open. Novelty never lasts very long.

I'm basing it on COMMON SENSE. Something that seems to be pretty uncommon these days.

Lets look at a few different angles of this:

1.) There are more photographers now than there EVER have been before. Sure, some won't last long. But a whole lot more are going to stick with it than back in the film days, due to the lower overhead costs that come along with digital. Yes, I understand the cost of software, hard drive space, computers, etc. But it's certainly no more expensive than what it cost to build a good darkroom before the digital era.

2.) As technology trickles down, lower end cameras will be able to do what pro cameras are doing now. Meaning that the price of admission will be alot lower. Just look at the D7000. If someone had told you you could get those features for $1200 5 years ago, you wouldn't have believed it. Because the D7000 is better than pro camera bodies (D2 series) from 5 years ago in many areas.

3.) Newspapers and magazines are beginning to move to online only publications, especially as devices like the ipad become more mainstream. As they move to online only, they are beginning to use video, rather than photos, for many of their stories/articles.

4.) Photography Blogs such as Froknowsphoto, strobist, and the like, are making learning photography easier than ever. If someone is really driven to learn photography, it can be done online, for free, relatively quickly.

There is simply no way that there will ever be more jobs available than photographers to fill them. That is absolutely a marketing ploy by colleges trying to get people to waste their money on a photography degree. There are more and more photographers competing for fewer and fewer jobs. Just as an example, my graduating class in high school (class of 2010) was 94 students. 17 of them are currently pursuing photography degrees, at 6 different schools. I know at least 15 more people from surrounding high schools who are also pursuing photography degrees. I honestly can't think of a job market that is more saturated than photography.

 

[Ballistics]

Calling bull and actually doing research about it are 2 different things.

I have to agree with this. You are, what? 19 or something? What kind of research are you basing your BS on?

Probably what you read here and that is not the best thing to do. Learn to think for yourself and analyse the data. Said data tells me that TODAY there are a million photogs willing to work for nothing. Life experience tells me that no one can pay the bills working for nothing. So, how long before that million photogs goes on to another life calling? A couple years.

And in that couple years a lot of the pro retail photogs worth their salt will have moved on to other areas of photography or will have retired from photography, therefore leaving the field wide open. Novelty never lasts very long.

I'm basing it on COMMON SENSE. Something that seems to be pretty uncommon these days.

Lets look at a few different angles of this:

1.) There are more photographers now than there EVER have been before. Sure, some won't last long. But a whole lot more are going to stick with it than back in the film days, due to the lower overhead costs that come along with digital. Yes, I understand the cost of software, hard drive space, computers, etc. But it's certainly no more expensive than what it cost to build a good darkroom before the digital era.

2.) As technology trickles down, lower end cameras will be able to do what pro cameras are doing now. Meaning that the price of admission will be alot lower. Just look at the D7000. If someone had told you you could get those features for $1200 5 years ago, you wouldn't have believed it. Because the D7000 is better than pro camera bodies (D2 series) from 5 years ago in many areas.

3.) Newspapers and magazines are beginning to move to online only publications, especially as devices like the ipad become more mainstream. As they move to online only, they are beginning to use video, rather than photos, for many of their stories/articles.

4.) Photography Blogs such as Froknowsphoto, strobist, and the like, are making learning photography easier than ever. If someone is really driven to learn photography, it can be done online, for free, relatively quickly.

There is simply no way that there will ever be more jobs available than photographers to fill them. That is absolutely a marketing ploy by colleges trying to get people to waste their money on a photography degree. There are more and more photographers competing for fewer and fewer jobs. Just as an example, my graduating class in high school (class of 2010) was 94 students. 17 of them are currently pursuing photography degrees, at 6 different schools. I know at least 15 more people from surrounding high schools who are also pursuing photography degrees. I honestly can't think of a job market that is more saturated than photography.

Basing your opinion on common sense, is not basing it on actual research. It's basing it on opinion.

All of your points are opinion.

Common sense: The stove is hot, don't touch it.

Way too many variables to consider your opinion as common sense. Calling your opinion logical would be different. It's a logical mindset, but it doesn't make it any more right than someone else's objection.

You gotta come up with something other than "common sense" as your grounds for objection.

As for colleges using this marketing ploy, this makes no sense. Being that you do not need a degree or a license to be considered a photographer.

 

[12sndsgood]

wether it is or it isnt it would always be in the college's best interest to have more jobs needed then workers for any degree regardless of wether you need that degree or not. its always beneficial to be able to say yes there will be jobs out the wazoo when you graduate and you will have a degree in your hands to set yourself apart from the rest of the photographers out there.

 

[spacefuzz]

Interesting thanks.

Would be interested in seeing one like that for landscape photography

 

[c.cloudwalker]

true, but as the population increases and the digital costs lower and become even more available. as soon as those millions of "photographers" go on to another calling there will be another million or more right behind them willing to give it a go. its easy to go awhile as a "photographer" if your holding a regular daytime job.


they say statistics can be easily skewed to give you the results you want to look at. i would imagine that the study based there findings off of established photographers on some level and might not have included the millions of facebook photographers who are now giving out their services. i mean you could base your numbers on businesses who have a business id allot easier then just counting every joes facebook photography outfit working without a valid liscence or taxes or any of the sort.

You are not totally wrong. The million photogs I mentioned (a number I pulled out of thin air) will be replaced. But only to a certain degree because word gets around that this is not such a great business to get into. Yes, thanks to all the instant comm going on, word gets around a lot faster than it used to. Young people (and I was once one) think they've invented the world but they haven't. Wedding photo once was a great way to make quick money just as it is today. And just like today, only the worthwhile ones stayed in business. The others quickly went by the wayside. Forgotten.

The idea that the cost of digital photography is lower is just that. An idea. Prove it to me.

I think more people had instamatics and were printing their shots than people with digital cameras. Very few images today get printed. They get shown on the computer and get forgotten almost as soon as they are seen. 1/ because there are way too many images and 2/ because when we did print shots we shared the prints (we send them left and right to friends.)

Today, you show your Momma your latest photos, she has no idea whatsoever what to do with that disk you gave her, she puts it away in a drawer and they are never seen again. I'm still holding on to negatives from my great-grand-father's days... And some of those got printed not that long ago for a museum.

So it seems to me it is cheaper because we don't print.

Well, if we don't print, film cameras are a lot cheaper. I can buy a couple dozens of them for the price of a crop body. Where, how is digital cheaper?

Common sense: The stove is hot, don't touch it.

Good advice here. You are better be ready to burn your fingers to the bone when mentioning common sense.

Look, I've met plenty of people your age who have more common sense than people my age but none of the points you are trying to make, show any signs of common sense.

1.) There are more photographers now than there EVER have been before. Sure, some won't last long. But a whole lot more are going to stick with it than back in the film days, due to the lower overhead costs that come along with digital. Yes, I understand the cost of software, hard drive space, computers, etc. But it's certainly no more expensive than what it cost to build a good darkroom before the digital era.

Do you have numbers to back this up or do you make it up as you go? Total BS. My first darkroom did not cost me more than a couple hundred $. As for the number of photogs, instamatics were a lot cheaper and easier to use than the average digital camera. Because of your age you forget that film processing was once very cheap and available everywhere. And considering how few rolls the average photogs shoot every year, it may not be any more expensive today. If you take out the printing, that is, which nobody does any more.

2.) As technology trickles down, lower end cameras will be able to do what pro cameras are doing now. Meaning that the price of admission will be alot lower. Just look at the D7000. If someone had told you you could get those features for $1200 5 years ago, you wouldn't have believed it. Because the D7000 is better than pro camera bodies (D2 series) from 5 years ago in many areas.

Total BS. As the price trickles down, as you put it, people want more expensive cameras, fancier ones.

3.) Newspapers and magazines are beginning to move to online only publications, especially as devices like the ipad become more mainstream. As they move to online only, they are beginning to use video, rather than photos, for many of their stories/articles.

What does that have to do with photo quality? Maybe you need to move on to video...

4.) Photography Blogs such as Froknowsphoto, strobist, and the like, are making learning photography easier than ever. If someone is really driven to learn photography, it can be done online, for free, relatively quickly.

I thank the Strobist for making sure no one can take away my business. Yes, true, some things are esy enough to learn online but for the most part, it's total BS and if you think you're about to become a pro because of sites like this, have fun.



And I stop here. Not worth going any further.

 

[Ballistics]

I'm confused, cloudwalker. Are you talking to me or Destin?