Losing business to amateurs

[Gary A.]

In the sports photography segment, a lot of long time shooters have counted upon ownership of a 300/3.8 and a 400/2.8 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and a couple of pro bodies as the things that keep "amateurs" out of their business. What that leads to is a sameness in the images coming out of the professionals; guys show up to the same events, shoot close to one another, with basically identical gear, and the shots all tend to look the same. Leaf through Sports Illustrated and see if you can tell who shot what: every single SEC football game, every single Pac-12 football game, the images look basically interchangeable. At the smaller market level, there are "pros" who show up to events, shoot for 20 minutes, then move on after they have made an image or two that is good enough for the publication they are stringing for or freelancing for, often NOT capturing the really most-interesting sports action, like say, the GAME-WINNING field goal with 00:07 remaining, or whatever, but being perfectly happy with the check they receive for the 1st quarter action they captured in the short time they were there. Meanwhile, the "football dad" type amateur, free to shoot the entire contest, winds up with complete coverage.

As a life-long University of Oregon football fan, I can also see the value in having longer coverage in sports, from the first second to the LAST second on contests, as well as the value of having three-person teams shooting big events. As the Ducks have grown from Pac 8 laughing stock, to Pac 10 celler-dwellers, to Pac 12 and national powers and top-5 rankings, I've seen a real increase in three- and four-man photo coverage in which having not better shooters but simply MORE GUYS shooting the same game action at the same time is producing the exquisite still photos that The Register Guard and The Oregonian and Sports Illustrated want to run on those games. The old-time idea of sending a single photographer to the games to get something "good enough to run" doesn't cut it any longer. And neither does average work. The bar has been raised.

What I've seen is "the bar" was once just ownership of a couple big teles, two bodies, and two standard pro lenses, and the ability to shoot the same old chit, over and over, at every event. Generic images. Same old stuff. Long tele, blown out background, feet cut off, ultra-tight, boring chit. I'm tired of that being considered "professional" sports photography. And I think a lot of Sports Information Directors are also tired of being ransomed for the same grade of "pro" shoots, week after week, when they can get basically the same, or almost the same stuff, from people who can provide equally usable, or maybe better, images for less, or for free. If a guy cannot compete with a FREE shooter, then his work is obviously NOT that valuable in the economic sense of valuable. If there's a lower-cost or free substitute, then the natural laws of economics will replace the over-priced product with a lower-cost one that fills the need.It's called "economics". Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.

When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.

Gary

 

[Derrel]

Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.

I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.

You've seized upon the unstated part of my point, which is that TODAY, there are TONS of wealthy or well-to-do, or just "serious" amateurs who own expensive, wide-aperture lenses of all types! It is not longer enough to count on the idea that an "amateur" photographer cannot afford a 300 f/2.8 and or a 400 f/2.8 lens.

The idea that a $10,000 lens investment will ensure a guy a lifetime career and will insulate him from "amateurs" no longer stands. There are PLENTY of people who can afford camera gear today, and they can learn how to use it pretty quickly. And apparently, some guy has found his services no longer worth $15,000 a year, replaced by a woman who is wealthy and who has a family with a European villa ! I love the way this story has been presented to us! The interloper is first, female. Gasp! And wealthy! And retired early! The horror! I mean, the horror! The one-sided nature of this post is almost comical in the totally slanted, sexist, anti-elitist, prejudicial way it has been put out here : The hard-working photographer-man, displaced by a retired, wealthy, woman, and even worse, a woman with family money and zero photography skills whatsoever. What's next? Allegations that she's blowing somebody to get the gig???)

And let's be honest, photos have become devalued, and the quality standards are not all that high these days. Hell, people look at cell phone images much of the time, and we now see cell phone videos, not pro-grade video, on local news on breaking stories, and you know what? The three-alarm fires look JUST as hot. The accident scenes look just as grisly. The police shootings and bombings and riots look just as bad as if they were made on a $100,000 Ikegami ENG (electronic news gathering) shoulder mount camera that weighed 30 pounds. It is NO LONGER 1982!!!

 

[sm4him]

I hate this for your friend, and for professional photographers in general, but as many others have said, this is not really unexpected and it is certainly not unique to photographers.
I just saw a FB post from a good friend who is a small business owner in our community, encouraging people to QUIT shopping at Walmart and patronize small business instead. But the truth is, for most people, if they can buy the same thing--or "close enough" to it--at Walmart for $1 that the small business is charging $3 for, well…Walmart is going to win that battle. Same for Best Buy, Home Depot, all those big chains. So the only way for small business to compete is by offering something Walmart can't--exceptional customer service for example. Or free coffee while I shop--that would win ME over.
Derrel mentioned desktop publishing. I used to do a lot of that as well, producing brochures and other promotional material for local businesses that just didn't have the editorial or computer expertise to do it themselves. But then came cheap-*ss printers, software programs with pre-made brochure templates, the INTERNET…and suddenly, EVERYONE could do their own brochure. Sure, they look like amateur, cheesy *crap* but nobody cared. The same way most people don't really appreciate the difference between excellent photography and all the rest of it.
I also used to do calligraphy and made quite a decent bit selling handwritten calligraphy; baby name plaques, poems, wedding invitations, you name it. And because it took a special skill to do it, I could charge quite a bit. But then, with the advent of the home computer, along came six billion FREE calligraphy fonts so you could just type it and print it yourself--and BOOM! just like that, real, hand-done calligraphy pretty much died a horrible death.

In the sports photography segment, a lot of long time shooters have counted upon ownership of a 300/3.8 and a 400/2.8 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and a couple of pro bodies as the things that keep "amateurs" out of their business. What that leads to is a sameness in the images coming out of the professionals; guys show up to the same events, shoot close to one another, with basically identical gear, and the shots all tend to look the same. Leaf through Sports Illustrated and see if you can tell who shot what: every single SEC football game, every single Pac-12 football game, the images look basically interchangeable. At the smaller market level, there are "pros" who show up to events, shoot for 20 minutes, then move on after they have made an image or two that is good enough for the publication they are stringing for or freelancing for, often NOT capturing the really most-interesting sports action, like say, the GAME-WINNING field goal with 00:07 remaining, or whatever, but being perfectly happy with the check they receive for the 1st quarter action they captured in the short time they were there. Meanwhile, the "football dad" type amateur, free to shoot the entire contest, winds up with complete coverage.

As a life-long University of Oregon football fan, I can also see the value in having longer coverage in sports, from the first second to the LAST second on contests, as well as the value of having three-person teams shooting big events. As the Ducks have grown from Pac 8 laughing stock, to Pac 10 celler-dwellers, to Pac 12 and national powers and top-5 rankings, I've seen a real increase in three- and four-man photo coverage in which having not better shooters but simply MORE GUYS shooting the same game action at the same time is producing the exquisite still photos that The Register Guard and The Oregonian and Sports Illustrated want to run on those games. The old-time idea of sending a single photographer to the games to get something "good enough to run" doesn't cut it any longer. And neither does average work. The bar has been raised.

What I've seen is "the bar" was once just ownership of a couple big teles, two bodies, and two standard pro lenses, and the ability to shoot the same old chit, over and over, at every event. Generic images. Same old stuff. Long tele, blown out background, feet cut off, ultra-tight, boring chit. I'm tired of that being considered "professional" sports photography. And I think a lot of Sports Information Directors are also tired of being ransomed for the same grade of "pro" shoots, week after week, when they can get basically the same, or almost the same stuff, from people who can provide equally usable, or maybe better, images for less, or for free. If a guy cannot compete with a FREE shooter, then his work is obviously NOT that valuable in the economic sense of valuable. If there's a lower-cost or free substitute, then the natural laws of economics will replace the over-priced product with a lower-cost one that fills the need.It's called "economics". Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.

I'm not gonna lie--as a photographer, a sports fanatic and a lifelong University of Tennesse fan (and alumnus), if offering to shoot for free would get me on that field taking photos of their football games for the ENTIRE game, I'd be all over it!

 

[The_Traveler]

When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amature or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amature sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.

If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.

 

[ronlane]

I'm not gonna lie--as a photographer, a sports fanatic and a lifelong University of Tennesse fan (and alumnus), if offering to shoot for free would get me on that field taking photos of their football games for the ENTIRE game, I'd be all over it!

I fully agree with this. Free photos for access to the sideline at an SEC, Big12, PAC 12 or ACC game is something that I wouldn't even have to think about. Done deal all the way.

 

[Braineack]

I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.

When I was at the zoo last weekend I was shooting next to a guy with a D3x on his Manfrotto monopod stand with a 300mm 2.8. That's ~$14,000 worth of equipment to shoot a sleeping lion while your (2) kids are running around. I was only lugging around ~$4,000 worth of equipment myself.

 

[runnah]

Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.

I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.

You've seized upon the unstated part of my point, which is that TODAY, there are TONS of wealthy or well-to-do, or just "serious" amateurs who own expensive, wide-aperture lenses of all types! It is not longer enough to count on the idea that an "amateur" photographer cannot afford a 300 f/2.8 and or a 400 f/2.8 lens.

The idea that a $10,000 lens investment will ensure a guy a lifetime career and will insulate him from "amateurs" no longer stands. There are PLENTY of people who can afford camera gear today, and they can learn how to use it pretty quickly. And apparently, some guy has found his services no longer worth $15,000 a year, replaced by a woman who is wealthy and who has a family with a European villa ! I love the way this story has been presented to us! The interloper is first, female. Gasp! And wealthy! And retired early! The horror! I mean, the horror! The one-sided nature of this post is almost comical in the totally slanted, sexist, anti-elitist, prejudicial way it has been put out here : The hard-working photographer-man, displaced by a retired, wealthy, woman, and even worse, a woman with family money and zero photography skills whatsoever. What's next? Allegations that she's blowing somebody to get the gig???)

And let's be honest, photos have become devalued, and the quality standards are not all that high these days. Hell, people look at cell phone images much of the time, and we now see cell phone videos, not pro-grade video, on local news on breaking stories, and you know what? The three-alarm fires look JUST as hot. The accident scenes look just as grisly. The police shootings and bombings and riots look just as bad as if they were made on a $100,000 Ikegami ENG (electronic news gathering) shoulder mount camera that weighed 30 pounds. It is NO LONGER 1982!!!

Lol, the "rich bored housewife" segment has decimated the graphic design and photography market. "Oh my husband pulls in six figures so I will open up a quaint business and undercut everyone because I have no need to turn a profit." That type of stuff is rampant these days, no offense to them but they kill the market for sole income people.

I can see "professional photographer" going the way of other professions that have been made irrelavent by technology.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm not gonna lie--as a photographer, a sports fanatic and a lifelong University of Tennesse fan (and alumnus), if offering to shoot for free would get me on that field taking photos of their football games for the ENTIRE game, I'd be all over it!

You'd better believe if UNL called hell yes I'd be down there tomorrow.

 

[bribrius]

I basically agree with most everything on this thread. I just wanted to say a couple cents about this though. The ones that don't NEED the work also may not have the same ambition FOR that work.
so it seems that someone who is attempting to do this for a living and stay doing it for a living would have a much higher level of ambition to "go get that shot". Because they want and NEED that shot.
Now, if years of easy photography sales and lack of moving their business in directions of certain specialization or bigger endeavors has made them kind of lazy, well then yeah. They will probably go out of business. But if they are willing to jump on a plane to travel to some third world hell or go wherever that shot may be and have that level of dedication and ambition I cant see how there still cant be a buyer for that.
The hobbiest are basically taking the easy stuff, if I had to guess. And since they don't rely on the income much they really have the option of not working that hard or not even going out to try to get difficult business.
There are things I WOULD NOT DO just for a shot. I don't need it that bad. The bar for doing this for a living went a lot HIGHER if I were to guess. It is the best of the best that are prolly still cashing checks. The really driven ones and a lens don't change that mentality you either have it or you don't. .
any thoughts?

 

[Derrel]

Losing business to amateurs might also be re-stated as losing business to people who have the same tools as you have and who can also provide the same product, or a viable substitute or alternative product, to a market that is flooded with other people doing pretty much the same,exact thing as what you are doing. In economics, this is BASIC, Economics 101 stuff: marginal utility analysis. 1)Do we pay $15,000 a year for this service? 2) Do we pay nothing for the same service, or perhaps slightly lower-quality service?

This is the way decisions about spending money are actually made, using marginal utility analysis. It's like the old adage: water runs downhill. That is the way things ARE.

 

[bribrius]

agree with that and your other message too derrel. Almost seems like there is two choices. You either go big or go home. You either live it, breathe it, and go get it or you just end up another one of the cattle hoping for someone to throw you some feed.
Not that I know, I am not even one of the cattle. lol
I wonder if the decades past were just "easy money" in a sense and people are missing that. Everyone seemed to go into photography thinking it was easy money. so now the bar is so high the money isn't so easy maybe only the top shooters who live this stuff are really safe..
And that may not have so much to do with the lens...
This just occurred to me talking to someone that has photos from the war (and the ptsd to go with it). I may be out in left field but it seems a far cry having them from doing weddings or sports shooting. So maybe there is still a huge separation in the business?

 

[lambertpix]

Motorsport is not something you just go out and do successfully. It takes time and patience in order to learn how a race car feels and handles. And playing videos such as Gran Turismo doesn’t count as experience. But Vadim Kogay, a rich Russian businessman, thought he was above it all and could race without a hitch. Instead of starting at a lower level, he went out and bought himself a Ferrari 458 GT3. Yes, GT3 racing. He then enters a race at Monza.

This guy was a hazard on the track, I'm surprised he was allowed to continue racing.

That guy seemed to be in over his head, but on the other hand, Monza was probably a decent track for him -- even though it's incredibly fast, there are lots of big run-off areas to help keep the competitors safe. For what it's worth, he didn't take anyone out, and I've seen plenty of pros wad up cars far worse than he did. Sports car endurance racing is well-acquainted with the concept of the "gentleman driver" - in fact, most classes of endurance racing mandate that at least part of your driving team is comprised of "amateurs". This guy (on the left -- sorry, the pic was so my son could show off to all his friends), for instance, has run the 24 Hours of Le Mans the last two years as a "bronze" driver:

IMG_1993.jpg by lambertpix, on Flickr

Whether you like it or not, money is a factor in all forms of racing today. Formula 1 has well-known cases of drivers getting rides in large part because they bring money to teams that are struggling for sponsorship, and if the money dries up, so does the ride. There's no question this irks purists, because it's not always the best driver who gets a chance to race, but it's absolutely the current state of racing.

Oh, and Gran Turismo? There's an actual path into "real" motorsport that starts with Gran Turismo. You're not going to hop straight into a top car and a top racing series, but some of the racers who've come through this program are doing really well today:

Discover the GT Drivers | Nissan GT Academy

Racing is, in fact, another example of a profession you can buy your way into, provided you've got a modicum of talent to begin with.

 

[unpopular]

And they say we're the "entitled generation"....

 

[Stradawhovious]

Well... I guess Adam Smith was right.

 

[Usul]

My opinion is that you get what you pay for. If the team pay $15k to the professional photographer they can demand results for $15k. If they pay nothing they have no right to demand anything. So if one time she qive up shoot for any reason bad mood, wet weather or something else insignificant, they will be forced to hire a professional again.