Is harder to be a pro nowadays, has photography become too easily available and cheap

[Ilovemycam]

I wasn't thinking even pro, I was thinking making money in a very small way by selling photos. Seems everyone is a photographer nowadays with all the cell phone cams. I see people advertising to shoot portraits for next to nothing. I've offered to shoot people for free and get rejected all the time.

I know there are pro photographers out there making big bucks or selling prints for thousands of $ a pop. But compared to all the people shooting pictures they are uncommon.

Wondering about your thoughts if you feel it is harder to be a pro nowadays...has photography become too easily available and cheapened?

 

[jwbryson1]

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Talk to the clerk at bestbuy about a pro "kit" set up, then create a large watermark, a facebook page, and you're set

 

[pgriz]

There's no money in something that anyone can get for free (or close to it). However, if you have something that everyone wants, and no-one else can supply, then you've got the license to print the money. Until someone else figures out how to do the same. People pay for dreams, memories, aspirational motivation, status. Figure out how to deliver those benefits using images, and you've got a potential business. But until you can turn that into a unique selling proposition, it's just "potential".

 

[fjrabon]

There once was a time where you could make money simply because you owned a nice camera, because so few people did. However, the only reason so few did was because adequate camera equipment was outrageously expensive. And/or you had to devote substantial time and/or money to developing film.

Now its harder to make money, but easier to get into the business. If you fail as a photographer now you're not out very much money, and everything you are out with, you can sell off for a relatively minor loss.

In the end, I don't think it's harder to be a pro photographer, but now instead of a gigantic cash outlay being the primary thing you need, it's talent and drive that are needed. In the past it was simply impossible for most people to become pro photographers because they simply lacked the means to buy the requisite gear. Now, if you're talented enough, you can deliver pro level results with something like a $2000 outlay of cash upfront and minimal processing costs on the back. In the past, not even counting inflation, it was something like a $10,000 outlay for digital or less for film, but more expensive and time consuming on the back end.

It's also a lot easier to learn these days. In the past if you wanted ANY knowledge, you pretty much had to be an indentured servant to an experienced photographer for a good long while. Now, you can get pretty far along the curve just from self study of the relevant materials and practice.

 

[Big Mike]

It's kind of funny that we consider it 'easier' and 'more affordable' to get into photography now, than say 20 years ago.

What did a typical 35mm SLR camera cost 20 years ago? Just a guess but $200 could probably get a decent camera and lens...maybe equivalent to what $1500-$2000 could get you with a modern DSLR kit.
Sure, there was film developing costs back then, but today you have to figure in the cost of a computer, internet connection, memory cards, hard drives etc.

I think that because we live in the digital era, anything digital (photography for example) seems to be easier and more accessible to the masses. This perceived notion of it being easier, has led to A LOT more people thinking that they can just buy the gear and become good at it...which has flooded the lower end of the photography market.

So 20 years ago, a mediocre photographer could make a living because there weren't 100,000 amateurs in every city competing for the same low end jobs.
So now the (relatively) same size market has a lot more photographers and there isn't enough money/clients to go around. And to further propagate that, many of the 'pros' are only doing it part time, while working another job to support themselves (or their spouse works). So they are essentially operating their small business at a loss because they can afford to....which again, makes it hard for the mediocre (full time) photographer to make a living.

But with that being said, higher end professionals who can deliver the type of quality that others can't, have much less competition...and that hasn't changed.

 

[PlanetStarbucks]

The abundance of cheap cameras everywhere may have brought the average quality of photographs to a lower point, but people still recognize quality work. You can still make a living if you produce good photographs. It's a skill that can't be purchased and will always be rare.

 

[fjrabon]

It's kind of funny that we consider it 'easier' and 'more affordable' to get into photography now, than say 20 years ago.

What did a typical 35mm SLR camera cost 20 years ago? Just a guess but $200 could probably get a decent camera and lens...maybe equivalent to what $1500-$2000 could get you with a modern DSLR kit.
Sure, there was film developing costs back then, but today you have to figure in the cost of a computer, internet connection, memory cards, hard drives etc.

I think that because we live in the digital era, anything digital (photography for example) seems to be easier and more accessible to the masses. This perceived notion of it being easier, has led to A LOT more people thinking that they can just buy the gear and become good at it...which has flooded the lower end of the photography market.

So 20 years ago, a mediocre photographer could make a living because there weren't 100,000 amateurs in every city competing for the same low end jobs.
So now the (relatively) same size market has a lot more photographers and there isn't enough money/clients to go around. And to further propagate that, many of the 'pros' are only doing it part time, while working another job to support themselves (or their spouse works). So they are essentially operating their small business at a loss because they can afford to....which again, makes it hard for the mediocre (full time) photographer to make a living.

But with that being said, higher end professionals who can deliver the type of quality that others can't, have much less competition...and that hasn't changed.

If you're going to compare film, compare film then to film now.

One hard drive holds thousands and thousands and thousands of rolls of film. A hard drive costs, what $100? One memory card can essentially be used for practically forever and costs about the same as about 5-10 rolls of film. Thousands and thousands and thousands of rolls of film costs thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. That's not even considering developing costs. You equivocated like the back end costs of digital are comparable at all to the back end costs of film. Furthermore, almost everybody these days has internet and a computer already. They aren't additional, 'photography only' costs. Developing supplies are. This isn't even considering the quicker turnaround and great amount of processing control digital allows.

This isn't to say digital is better than film, but saying things were cheaper back int he film only days is a bit of a stretch, especially if you consider inflation.

 

[table1349]

I wasn't thinking even pro, I was thinking making money in a very small way by selling photos. Seems everyone is a photographer nowadays with all the cell phone cams. I see people advertising to shoot portraits for next to nothing. I've offered to shoot people for free and get rejected all the time.

I know there are pro photographers out there making big bucks or selling prints for thousands of $ a pop. But compared to all the people shooting pictures they are uncommon.

Wondering about your thoughts if you feel it is harder to be a pro nowadays...has photography become too easily available and cheapened?

It is simple to be a "pro" now a days. Any idiot with a camera that can take pictures and then find someone to buy them is a "pro." Being a "Pro" means nothing other than making a few bucks.

Being an accomplished photographer on the other hand is just as time consuming as possible. It isn't the "pro" photographers that are making "big bucks" on their photos. The ones that make a good living are Accomplished First and Foremost and it is that Accomplishment, knowledge and ability that people pay for.

 

[Overread]

I think the point is start-up costs for film then were significantly cheaper than the startup costs for digital. Heck this is true even more so now - you can start up in film with a pro series film body for quite a lot less than even some entry level digital bodies. Yes long term the film will cost you more in developing costs (esp if you shoot a lot) - but the initial outlay is less.



Also I don't think its just digital that has made photography so popular as a hobby profession. I think we've also had a big economic and social shift in the last 20 years. There is now even more social and economic pressure to have both partners earning in a relationship, so the potential workforce is increased, there's also been a drop on the notion of the concept of a "housewife" as a roll in society (its there I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that its no longer something that is held up as the achievement for girls to aspire to).
Then in the last 5 or so years we've had the economic downturn, whereby jobs are cut, wages are cut and prices go up - so you've generated a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands and not much to do. So it stands to reason that more will try to earn money as and where they can. Photography has relatively low startup-costs and no gatekeepers (you don't need a licence/degree/document to do it) so its very easy to get into it. Plus as said above the "decent" gear is advertised as affordable so you can see many people slipping into it as a side earner/hobby profession.
Further the loss risks are, as seen by most untrained, quite small. Websites cost nothing and business cards/prints are dirt cheap. So taking a hobby setup and going pro with it seems to present a way to earn money with no barriers and with tiny pitfalls (since we must remember the gear isn't an investment its a hobby purchase).

I'd also point out that there is also scale- in the past I'm sure many hobby photographers did a bit of earning on the side in the lower market areas; the thing is back in the pre-internet days you never really "knew" about it as such. Today you Do know about it; you see their watermarks, websites, rates, facebook pages etc.... - so you see far more of the hobby earners than you saw in the past. So its not just a bigger effect, but also far more noticeable (which tends to mean that it gets digital blamed for creating this kind of photographer).

 

[tirediron]

Mehh... it's the same discussion that happened when that upstart Geo. Eastman came along with his new-fangled "roll film"!

 

[Derrel]

Yes. Yes.

 

[Overread]

Mehh... it's the same discussion that happened when that upstart Geo. Eastman came along with his new-fangled "roll film"!

I missed that debate on account of my parents not being born yet

 

[pgriz]

Mehh... it's the same discussion that happened when that upstart Geo. Eastman came along with his new-fangled "roll film"!

Hopefully. John, you're not talking from personal experience?

 

[table1349]

I think the point is start-up costs for film then were significantly cheaper than the startup costs for digital. Heck this is true even more so now - you can start up in film with a pro series film body for quite a lot less than even some entry level digital bodies. Yes long term the film will cost you more in developing costs (esp if you shoot a lot) - but the initial outlay is less.

I would have to disagree about start up costs for film being cheaper. In 1971 my Nikon F2 with 50mm f1.4, and 85mm, 135mm and 200mm along with a winder ran me around $1,100.00 +. That translates in today's dollars to $6,285.13. Pretty hefty price when you compare features of the old F2 to a modern digital camera. An entry level Nikon or Canon has all the available features of the old F2 and more. It is features that drive the costs of cameras today just as in 1971. A D5100 with Kit lens, and a 70-300 can be had for under $1,000.00.