Untitled Document

Folks,

This might be a good time to resume a topic that we last addressed six years ago: the overall state of things for professional photographers.

In 1996, I wrote a column that provoked considerable ire by predicting that digital photography would be replacing film over the next decade. Most photographers did not agree, thinking that film was indispensable and that digicams were toys. They are now buried along with their Hasselblads.

Five years later, I wanted to write a follow-up column describing how things had shaken out. Before doing so, I posted a request for comment to the list, because I had certain preconceptions about what had happened and wanted to find out whether they were in accord with what others were seeing. Generally they were, but there were a couple of areas where I was obliged to change my opinion in view of the response, so the column was much the better for the experience.

The interesting thread is archived at

http: //www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/DailyLife/ACT-Dans-photographer.htm

It seems to have been only yesterday, but in fact the thread took place in January 2001. If there's interest in having a similar conversation today, I'm obviously not intending to write about this topic, but have prepared the same type of statements (some of which are taken verbatim from 2001, and now, IMHO, seem very obvious). In 2001, many people wanted to respond offline because they did not want their name or city associated with their sentiments; that's fine again this time.

In 2001, we noted that professional photographers were just scraping by. This was unusual, because pre-9/11, just about everyone else in the industry was doing quite well. Once the economy turned sour, photographers were hit especially hard. This was reflected in my classes, as the overall number of photographers dropped, and the only ones claiming to make money were those who were doing retouching and/or managing printing.

That number has remained lower, but it's been more than replaced by a new phenomenon: the serious hobbyist. This is usually someone in their 50s, successful in business, often owning lots of photographic and printing equipment and totally committed to their hobby, to the extent that they're willing to go on the firing line in my class. (Don't think that this means the classes are being dumbed down--these "amateurs" are tough, tough, tough. They tend to be dynamic, talented, and competitive, as in, they don't want their results to be as good as professionals get--they want *better*.)

Anyhow, appended are my preconceptions about how the field is shaking out today--subject to change depending upon your responses. Fire away.

Dan Margulis

*********************************

a) The past five years have seen considerable retrenchment, as many independent photographers have gone out of business.

b) This effect has been particularly pronounced at the high end--the on-assignment shooters. Those who have a steady business model (portraits, weddings, etc.) has been less affected.

c) Those professionals who are now making money tend to either be at the top quality level, have a group of three or more photographers, or have branched out into nontraditional areas, such as retouching or taking charge of the client's printing.

d) The act of shooting a picture is less valuable than it used to be; the money is elsewhere in the process.

e) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not be proficient in Photoshop.

f) Many photographers have made themselves their own stock agencies by selling previously shot work online.

g) There has been a great growth in the number of pro-am photographers--

those who occasionally take money for their work, but are not attempting to make a living in the photographic field.

h) A significant number of people are selling photographs as artwork, but it is hard to make a living that way.

i) Many jobs that previously required a professional photographer are now being shot by amateurs.

j) Because of the popularization of digital photography, clients are more sophisticated about the trade than they used to be.

___________________________________________________________________________

Dan,

All points seem quite true, except for:

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Although the "ease" of digital photography appears to some clients to be less of a mystery than before, they constantly need updating/reminding about the trade issue of rights management and image licensing, a very important part of the business model, and something in much turmoil with the rise of royalty-free and micro stock, and general theft on the web.

Forget about what clients know, I don't think many photographers under 35 know what a dot or flag, silk or cukie, quarter CTO or graduated ND are (or were). The job used to be to deliver a chrome that was suitable for quality separation - correct exposure, proper density range, and desired color temperature throughout, in addition to a useful depth-of-field, meaningful composition, and all the rest. That was a real handful. There were many "gotcha's" then, as there are many different ones today in the capture device / imaging software / printer / paper / scanner / colorsync menagerie (some say, obfuscation scenario).

In addition to retouching, which used to be a noble art when practiced the old fashioned way, and an awarness of separation standards, the photographer now takes on, to varying extents, illustration and vector art, type design and layout, html / web gallery and slide show presentation with all the nasty browser compatibility issues included. Yet, as you say, if you don't know your color correction and printing issues very well, you aren't going to be in much demand as a photographer today. Maybe the title "photographer" should be changed, but someone coming from a strong photographic background, and who has "vision" gained from experience making images SHOULD be able to do well.

That said, I'm in the Boston, MA, market which is very tough, for me, at least. I do admit that disability, occurring for me during the time period under discussion, makes it difficult to report my experience without the influence of that distraction. Generally, however, I agree with your point, Dan, about photographers taking a big hit. Yet the tools we have today offer so much potential, I don't know why we're struggling.

don

--

don schaefer

boston, ma

___________________________________________________________________________

Folks,

In light of two of the first three replies, let me request that people commenting on this thread use responses to my specific assertions as a starting point for their riffs. If not, we're likely to get way too general way too fast.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

What is happening within the photography/print community is much like how the world has changed, and continues to change because of Globalization. As newer technologies come online they send system perturbations that make everyone rethink how and why work is done. Technology is making the world more horizontal. As soon as 20 years ago, the hierarchy seemed throughly entrenched: there was a client, art director, illustrator, photographer, stylists, film processing/ handling, scanner, retoucher, and pre-pressmen. All this was necessary to bring about an ad campaign from idea to print. Our economies are becoming more intertwined and technologies that were previously esoteric, suddenly become not only tangible but commonplace. Now, everyone can "make" a picture. Before, you were a photographer, because you knew how to expose film; you knew how the magic worked and no one else did. So sorry but, the cat is out of the bag. The intimate secrets that were once coveted, have instead been leapfrogged and banished to obsoletism.

As soon as 20 years from now, the role of the photographer will cease to exist. Photojournalism will instead be replaced by bystanders with 15 megapixel cell phone cameras who then upload the photos and video directly to the internet and the whole world watches in real time. Product photography be replaced because instead, products are rendered via CG faster, better and cheeper. Think it won't happen, it's already happened in the automotive industry. Almost all car photography has been replaced by a CAD file being handed off to a CG artist who then renders the final project to exactly how the art director wants. Celebrities are already having their faces and bodies scanned to be featured in video games and made into action figures. How much longer till these scans then fall to CG animators who can then "pose" these celebrities/models on their computer then render any lighting they desire.

Markets change, processes evolve, technologies proliferate, and all will expected to adapt. Because there isn't room in the budget to hire a photographer any more.

Alan Klement

___________________________________________________________________________

Dan,

Being new to your group I have a few comments about your preconceptions but I will respond with them later.

What I would like to suggest is you ask for responses on the following groups

<APAdigital@yahoogroups.com

<ASMPproAdvice@yahoogroups.com>

<APAnet@yahoogroups.com>

also I believe ASMP has a fine art group with a few more photographers using film. there is the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) forums that focus on wedding and portrait photographers. And for some others there are microstock agency site's with forums their photographers and others are on.

I feel that you will get a larger response from more working photographers for a broader cross section of the industry and more concise answers.

my 50¢ (2¢ adjusted for inflation)

Arye P. Rubenstein

___________________________________________________________________________

Here is my take on the photographers and photographic industry today.

Film for the most part is dying a slow death.

Granted, there are still some areas where it may be superior to digital - 5x7 and 8x10 sheet film.

Kodak stopped making Photographic Paper.

Most local labs are phasing out film development.

Most photo stores do not carry pro film, or the selection is becoming very limited.

Photographers who have switched to digital are finding out that Digital is much more demanding than negative color film.

Digital photography is akin to shooting chrome - a much smaller latitude.

Digital cameras/sensors require only the best glass/lens to make good images.

If you are not willing to take the time and invest in learning the new technology you will not survive.

As Dan said: It requires a working knowledge of Photoshop to get the most out of your images.

So called Professionals - prior to 2000 - relied on the 'lab' to make them look good.

Therefore "Good Enough was Good Enough"

Today's Digital Professional Photographers are pushing the imaging envelope - that is those who are serious enough to say "Good Enough is never Good Enough" I can make it better.

I have been a student of "Professional Photoshop" since Dan's first book and version 3.0 of PS. I have devoured most any other book I could get my hands on since then. I'm 67, 4 years ago I decided to go "Professional" as a photographer. In December I took and passed my PPA CCP exam. I'm passionate about my hobby/business. Since 1960 I have been a serious amateur photographer. It took the Digital SLR, Photoshop and Dan's book to awaken my passion.

If you have a good eye, understand color, and are proficient in Photoshop/image correction - you can make your images Sing!

With Digital Photography and the tools that we now have, your imagination (and budget) is your only limitation.

Mike

Fine Photography by

Michael Demyan

www.mikedemyan.com

610-758-9769

___________________________________________________________________________

On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Alan wrote:

is this with regard to the Borg or the Matrix or what?

Advertising budgets usually find a way to adapt to what actually sells.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

I really can't argue with the comments I have read on this subject so far. To get top notch results, you have just as many challenges as before, and perhaps a few new ones too boot. You need to be more than a photographer and become expert at other processes in the chain to survive. No arguments.

But having said that, it is easier and faster than ever before for the average Joe to get "good" results with the tools now at his disposal. Before, not all that many amateurs would have attempted sending a job to a comemrcial printer on his own, or doing his own postcards, or even his own product photography. But, with a decent digital camera, immediate feedback via image playback and histogram, exposures tend to be better, and you don't have to shoot with a view camera to get a large enough images to fill a letter sized page with a high resolution image. With the proliferation of online companies that will print business cards, postcards, "fine art" prints, free downloadable templates for brochures, displaced pre-press people and hungry commercial printers scrambling to provide services to attract amateurs, etc, a non-pro with some decent tools, software and a little training can get a much better result than years ago. Professional quality?? Usually not, and often a step down, but good enough for many product brochures, cards, posters, and even advertisements.

At my previous company, for example, we used to hire a professional photographer to set up lighting, and shoot product for brochures, posters, advertisements and presentations. They used a view camera or a Hasselblad, took Polaroids to check lighting, shot and processed the film, scanned on a drum scanner, touched up the file and delivered the file at a hefty price. That ended years ago with the advent of good digital cameras. I know of many companies who have done the same thing. Yes, the pro was better, but at $1700/day, it was very pricey. These new digital tools made it easier to partially reduce the gap between pro and amateur, though professional results still require extensive training and experience. Nearly any fool can get superior prints at the local Lab compared to what was possible years ago. All they have to do is look at the histogram and view the image on their camera display. If it's a dog, they hit the delete key and take a few more shots until they get some reasonably good ones. Couldn't do that very easily 5-10 years ago. So with the quality gap closing somewhat, it was inevitable that the price gap had to close as well.

With the internet, you can usually find hundreds of suitable images that meet a large portion of the need previously supplied by photographers.

Unless one has a unique talent, style, package or a specialty that is not easily duplicated by the average person and some good equipment, photographers and photography have moved towards being commodities. Commoditization always drives the price down to the basement, and it boils down to price, deliver and terms.

So, I agree with every statement in Dan's list. The rule is innovate, repackage, find new niches, offer a complete or unique service (or align with others to offer a complete package), or fade away. Having said that, there are some top professionals who stand out and seem to be doing as well as ever, just like the top 100 tennis pros. They do fine, but the people in the next tier down are struggling. A sad state of affairs, but to me the writing is on the wall.

Lou Dina

___________________________________________________________________________

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:31 AM, dmargulisnj wrote:

These points by Dan's show that even now the role of a photographer is changing, and soon will not exist.

Next, I wonder, is how Photoshop will change in the next 10 years. I see Photoshop, as we use it now, becoming obsolete. Many high end retouching houses develop their own image editing software, and many have in house CG personal.

http://www.taylorjames.com/

Just less than a year ago, this company began having a part time 3d artist and was 95% Photoshop. Already, it seems the ratio has reversed. Shops like The Box here in NYC, don't even use much Photoshop and write their own programs for editing images.

Professional Photoshop will be not needed. The program will split off to a consumer end product, that kids will play around with, and a tool used by pre-pressmen to tweak images for print.

Alan Klement

___________________________________________________________________________

Dan and Group,

I do not have any good statistics about how professional photographers are making end meet, but I think the most plausible hypothesis is that they (those who are surviving) have found something to sell other than their images. For example, the "workshop experience" is probably what some photographers are selling.

Dan did mention that some had a stable business model, and he gave as an example wedding photographers. But even there, I expect that those who try to survive by selling their images will starve, since there are too many "weekend wedding warriors" who can crank out images. But those who know that they are selling memories, not images, seem to do well.

And recall that this sort of thing has happened to many others. Who was the last poet (Alfred Lord Tennyson??) who was popular with the mass of the middle class? Recall that one could make a living by cranking out short stories as late as the 1950's. The photograph today is becoming what the short story became in the 1960's.

Please consider the above a hypothesis; it is not knowledge.

Lash LaRue

275 Turnpike Rd.

Lexington, VA 24450-6108

___________________________________________________________________________

Hello Dan

Comments inserted in-line below:

First off I should point out that I shoot with Hasselblads every day (with a digital back).

Actually the Low-end has probably been hit harder, how many photographers are shooting real estate now for example?

I agree here. The only way I have been able to differentiate myself has been to use better gear (digital back vs DSLR) and offer better services (retouching, and thanks to Dan, CMYK file delivery).

I believe that part of the reason that photographers have suffered is that many have failed to learn the process and invest in the gear. I have lost count of the number of times clients have asked my why another photographer's work printed washed out (ARGB assigned sRGB) or what they are supposed to do with the RAW files that the photographer supplied.

True enough.

Certainly knowledge of PS is critical to my business.

Others are sub-contracting this work, and for RAW processing there seems to be a growing trend towards the "digital lab" like this crowd:

http://digitalfusion.net/process/

Very hard to be successful at this in the face of Getty/Corbis but it can be done.

Absolutely, these guys are happy to work for glory (ie for free). There is a huge net-based culture of amateurs whose motivation is to have their photos rated by others, these same people are thrilled if they can make a few dollars from a sale.

Agree

Agree see above.

To a degree, they certainly appear to know more about photography, but their lack of knowledge of Colour management and prepress has been exposed, as photographers have educated themselves. As I said above I believe that investing at the high end of gear and educating myself in CMYK has kept my business growing. I am seeing clients return to me that have tried the semi-pro with horror stories of mangled files.

One last depressing thought, CGI is starting to make inroads to all sorts of photography not just car photography where it is already pretty dominant.

Nick Tresidder

___________________________________________________________________________

False. In the central Illinois area, a few wedding/portrait guys have either left the area or closed shop, but not any fully established photographers.

In late 2002 I began using a Canon 1Ds and my film usage stopped almost overnight. I realized that the revenue stream from film + scans would be gone unless my business model changed. A little math led me to the realization that professional digital capture is more expensive that film + scans, and I began charging digital fees. I was virtually alone in that practice, but it has been instrumental in keeping me in business, allowing me to expand my business, and allow me to provide for my family.

Off Topic: I think not charging realistic fees for the digital "workflow" (including capture, process, retouch and archive) is one of the primary reasons many photographers' businesses fail.

False. I'm a commercial assignment photographer—no weddings or family portraits— and have seen my workload increase to the point of burn out since 2001.

False. I never thought of retouching as a nontraditional area because I've always strived to serve and fulfill an art director's vision completely. My business model has remained the same since 1994. Produce, shoot, scan & retouch every job I'm awarded. Before that, scanning was done by prepress shops and retouching was done dye transfer artists or prepress shops or by me (with scans provided by the prepress shop).

True & False. This depends on the image produced. It may be true for some work (e.g., run 'n gun work, corporate portraiture for cheap bank execs), but for images requiring any amount of decent production, there is good money available for the shoot.

False. I think it is possible to be in the very top rung of professional photography and not be proficient in PS. There are plenty of guys who use retouchers after a shoot and they say they make more money shooting and subcontracting the retouching (and charging for those fees with a markup). This business model makes sense if one is busy enough and client budgets can handle top-tier retouching fees.

For me, however, the statement is true. Once I began providing scans and retouching, I found clients preferred "one-stop shopping". They didn't want to run around to various shops in the area for scans, retouching and proofs. Plus my turn-around was faster with better results (I cared more about my photography than the prepress shop).

I found the added revenue stream of scans, retouching and proofs to be excellent, and it allowed me to upgrade to better and better equipment while providing significantly better color and results. All this while the general trend of prepress color was declining into "good enough". Most of my clients realized this and my business consistently grew.

True. It's an obvious solution to bloated hard drives. Either try to sell some bits & bytes, or delete them.

True for those who "find" photographs, false for those who produce photographs (i.e., construct and/or light a scene). Those who shoot nature scenes, urban scenes, sports events and parties by the terabyte can make a few bucks at the office or through a personal connection. The statement is false for produced photographs where lighting a scene with a dozen strobes is the norm. Most weekend warriors don't want to schlep around a truckload of lighting and grip equipment on their day off, and they almost certainly don't know how to charge for that kind of work.

Some of these weekend warriors may be the type who cannot fulfill someone else's vision with their equipment and knowledge of the craft. It's one thing to pull off a shot a few times a year, it's quite another to do it many times a week, every week, year after year. The pro-am guy may be proficient in Photoshop, and it most certainly helps his work when it can't be lit, or prepped or built to a specified vision.

True. The internet has made online galleries with a link to PayPal very easy to set up. It can be done from scratch in a couple of hours. Why not try to sell a few prints this way?

True since Adam & Eve took family photos. This has also been so since I took my first job in 1984. I was one of those guys. A week later, at the film lab, I was blessed with a brief lecture by a local pro on the value of photography and why I should have charged more.

False. I find that clients like to know a bit about the craft, but they have no desire to sit in front of a monitor for 10 hours retouching on a deadline. The distance between knowing about "megapixels" and color correction in LAB mode is huge. Only a few serious hobbyists go there for fun. Most clients don't.

Off Topic:

Dan, you may want to query ASMP or APA to get a more diverse sample of people. Life outside this forum is a lot different than inside. If we don't look outside our boundaries, we think we're the only ones around.

~ Chris Brown

___________________________________________________________________________

on this topic a rhetorical question, i ask:

are you a photographer because you own a camera or because you solve creative problems and have a vision?

david tighe

former prepress guy, now retired and an indie artist

___________________________________________________________________________

Yes, and more than a couple of labs also. Those who have not adapted to the new technologies have become incapable of competing.

Not really, I don't do weddings or portraits but friends who do, tell me that a lot of weddings are being shot by "a cousin" "a friend" who has the ability to produce acceptable photographs with the help of these new powerful imaging computers called digital cameras. Same goes for pictures of the kids, graduations, family portraits (turn on that timer!) etc. In my line of work, product shots and food have remained specialties which require a lot of talent and technical ability to do well and which is still in high demand. Again I repeat what I said before, those who were sitting comfortably at the "high end" and would not hit the books and learn about digital photography and computers, just became "ignorants" in a digital age.

I agree. Being able to deliver on time and in a consistent manner is what separates us from amateurs or the new breed of pro-amateurs who have seemed a good and cheap alternative. Clients burned repeatedly, come back to us much wiser. Achieving the highest quality level as a professional photographer now implies continuos study and being aware of the latest push of the envelope. And like it has always been in this industry, the printing industry and at NASA, the high end equipment which our work allows us to purchase, continues to be a great part of the quality we deliver. Digital lenses, a digital back of 33 or more mpxls is just as important as a Heidelberg press.

I don't think this is true. What has happened is that in the never- ending search for more affordable products, we are victims of a vicious circle. We want our soap to be cheaper or not to go up in price. The only way to give us consumers this, is for the manufacturer to cut costs. We just become victims of the cost cutting process. We either find ways to cut costs and deliver a more affordable product or we price ourselves out of the market. I find myself doing more for less. I still make a profit, have put three kids through college and get to travel. Even afford Dan's classes ;-)

I could not agree more. Photoshop is just the new lab we all have to go to in order to deliver a final quality product consistently and priced competitively. I know photographers who will not touch a computer and so have to hire assistants who will do that for them. In so doing, their cost is higher than that of a self sufficient shooter. Creatively too, being able to use PS is an advantage which allows one to offer more bang for their buck to clients. One thing I have done to earn more is to offer doing the stripping out of backgrounds. With the load of work at the agencies this has come to be an option which saves them time and thus money. Retouching too. I tell them that no one will take as much care of my images as myself and I mean that to the point of spending as much time as it takes on an image even though what they are paying me is "not worth it."

Now a days this is very easily done and I have read of very successful cases.

Yes, and they too sell their photos for pennies in web sites of their own or stock "outlets."

If by this you mean as "fine art," then I do agree. But artists have always have had a hard time making a living. We just tend to dwell on the most successful like Picaso, Warhol etc. Michelangelo, VanGogh and others didn't have it so easy. Anyway... what is art? It seems that collectors with large acquisitive power tend to decide what is and what is not.

This is what I have come to call the "good enough" syndrome. In my market, the advertising agencies have bought decent digital cameras which Art Directors use to photograph with and with their proficiency in PS, the results are very usable, "cutting edge," "urban," and cheap. Lately I've come to think that if a shot is technically awful, then it is "amazing."

I don't think so. Its just as in the days of film. I do see clients now getting used to us creating great work with less money and time. Computers, which were going to make life easier for us have established a breakneck pace which just keeps going faster and faster, leaving us without brakes. Clients' mantra does seem to be "Photoshop can do anything!" To them, its not us. It's the computer that is magical and all powerful. It all boils down to doing it better than the other guy and making them notice. So what's new?

___________________________________________________________________________

On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Paco Marquez wrote:

Well, it's also important to note societal shifts that change the way the "business" operates. Let's keep in mind that while there may be "So much money in weddings" for the people who do catering or rent out rooms, etc, lots of people are getting married for their second or third or fourth time. The idea of spending a lot of money to have pictures of an event that may turn out to be a disaster like the one before means that lots of people who get married just don't care much if they have nothing more than a basic visual record. In addition, there are lots of couples who live together for many years and sometimes don't get married until after they've had children, so they obviously don't have the sort of money to spend on a wedding that used to be available for couples who went into a marriage without these sorts of financial burdens. Also figure in the cost of college, so even if you are a young, successful professional couple, you've probably already got college debt close to six figures. Since you can't save money on a room or food (unless you have the wedding at home or get a family member to cook or do a pot luck), the only place you can skimp is the photography (oddly enough, the room and food have probably already been squeezed as low as possible from past cost cutting in those industries).

so much of this stuff is basically disposable, it's hard to justify the considerable expense of a professional photographer with an expensive studio. You run off some posters and commercials, then your competitor rips you off (or does an homage, lol) so you have to scrap it all and start again. A really great picture, at least in advertising, doesn't last as long as it used to.

For news organizations, though, it's a boon. You just can't hire enough photographers to literally cover everything, so taking in amateur work is key. Now, they should be compensating these people (obviously not at the level of a pro), but it means that you really are competing with anyone with a camera phone. Of course, a lot of this is because there are events that no one expects and the crappiest camera pictures of an event is better than picture you didn't take with the high end equipment because you just weren't there. Remember that the most famous movie clip in history, the Zagruper film, was shot by a hobbyist who was just in the right place at the right time. Apparently, no professionals bothered to capture this seeming non-event. A close second would probably be the Rodney King tape. Again, for photographers, it's magnified as cameras are everywhere, but if you're enterprising and young, you can pick up fairly cheap equipment and get far better results than a camera phone and make a little money (assuming you can walk around with a camera these days without getting arrested, which is another issue entirely).

What's new is that you don't have to go to a special room with nasty chemicals anymore. So yes, clients can actually go through the same process that a professional does using dumbed-down but very similar tools. It doesn't mean they really know what's going on, but it isn't the sort of magical experience it used to be. Once upon a time, you took pictures, dropped them off in a hut, and came back days later and got prints. Some of us got to go in those ugly, smelly rooms and learn what happened in the hut, but it was generally very hard to get access to one. Most people couldn't really learn about the process even if they wanted to (they could read a book, but it was unlikely they'd be able to go in and actually do any of it hands on). Now, they can. It doesn't mean they can do it well (although they think they can, don't we all overestimate our own abilities?), but it's not a mystical experience that only the chosen few can be a part of.

Matthew Rigdon

___________________________________________________________________________

david deaubrey tighe wrote:

And I answer rhetorically in the words of a saying posted on my

office wall -

"If you buy a flute, you have a flute. If you buy a camera, you are a

PHOTOGRAPHER!"

Geoff Shearer

___________________________________________________________________________

Many photographers are indeed going under. The cost of re-tooling and upgrading Is horrendous. The pressure to lower photo rates is also horrendous. In fact, my experience has been, that photo rates are not much different today than they were 20 years ago.

The digital backs I use cost over $20K. I own four of them. I shoot a lot of apparel and because of the moire producing issues of single capture backs and cameras, I am forced to purchase these more expensive multi-pass backs to produce high quality images for catalog reproduction.

Do you think the client cares that a typical digital work station costs at least $30K? In spite of the higher cost of doing business in a digital age, photographers are doing what they©ˆve always done when business is slow....they lower their rates, ultimately hurting themselves and the greater commercial photography industry.

I believe the photographers that are doing well are the ones at the very top of advertising. They are the ones who understand branding and have styles or techniques that are perceived as unique. The other group that is doing well may be the ones who shoot for catalogs where repeat business is the key to running a profitable studio. I fall into the latter group. My billings have gone up every year for four straight years.

But, I too, am now feeling the crunch now as clients are looking for ways to cut their cost of doing business. They are questioning fees that were taken for granted for years. Shooting digitally saves the client money downstream but the cost to the shooter, as I©ˆve already mentioned, is like nothing we©ˆve sever seen before in old film days.

You buy a view camera....you have it forever. You buy a digital back...if you are lucky....you use it a few years...if the manufacturer does not go out of business or does not upgrade its native software to comply with newer versions of Mac OS or photoshop.

So why are we in this business again?

--

CHRIS ELINCHEV

Small Pond Productions LLC

2255 County Highway Z

Blue Mounds, Wisconsin 53517 USA

___________________________________________________________________________

Lewis LaRue wrote:

But even there, I expect that those

I've been following this thread with interest - having spent the past 32 years since leaving college making a very adequate living with a firm that provides our clients with both graphic design and commercial photography.

While the playing field may be changing, there is still a very real market for good, creative work. I just don't see it going away.

For those who lived through it, there was a time in the early eighties when the computer was pretty fresh in design offices, and desktop publishing was in its infancy. A lot of work for designers was being done in house by the secretary with a propensity for art. It wasn't always pretty, often used really horrible combinations of fonts, but it did the job, saved them money and provided a lot of pride of authorship.

It took a few years before most companies realized that that was no way to run their marketing communications. Those that didn't probably weren't destined to be anyone's best client anyway. The net effect was that a lot of the drudge work that some designers took on just so they would get a crack at the premium projects was now being done in house.

Ultimately, it freed up the lower end of the budget to be added into the middle and upper end projects that demanded the talents of a designer.

Good designers may not have always thrived, but they continued to exist, smart designers sold consulting to teach the in house guys enough so that they wouldn't embarrass the company in the marketplace, and made themselves more valuable in the long run. Poor designers, or those not willing to adapt found work as real estate agents. Darwin wins.

Through it all, we've heard the constant whine of the pundit who has been predicting that the internet would kill print by the end of the 90's.

Photography is going through a similar process. The tools available on the low end are getting pretty good. We've seen clients having their field reps shoot projects that should have been done by a pro. Realistically, they never would have paid a pro to go out on location to document that project, so its not really taking work away from anyone, its creating work where it didn't exist before. Their powerpoints are far and away better than the competition.

We've held mini seminars for several clients to educate their sales reps on how to use that point and shoot in such a way that their images actually have some value for the company. The thing is, when they see shots come in of a really nice installation that would look good in their latest brochure, it turns into a project for a professional to go out and shoot. We've set a couple of clients up with shooting systems and mini-studios so that their web images will actually look decent even though they're shot in house. Got a decent consulting fee in the process, and their undying gratitude and an appreciation of the difference between what they can get done in house and what we produce for them.

Did we lose some work along the way? Only the low end work that we dreaded doing in the first place. Did we actually produce more work for them in the long run - you bet.

Look around you - do you really think that the work you see in magazines, brochures and marketing pieces is being produced by low end shooters? We live in a marketing environment - it will always be fueled by great images. If some of our competitors are eliminated by technology replacing the lower end work, it is more of a darwinian result than anything else.

Amen.

Jeff Smith

Smith/Walker Design and Photography

___________________________________________________________________________

Dan, et al

I'm going to come from a very different perspective; a long time hobby photographer (with on and off cycles over the years) who moved from the corporate world to making a living as a consultant (business & marketing) & photographer.

I'm only a few months into the process, and some of these observations may be tempered by time!

I think this is a fundamental issue. Two things are happening: One is the move to a 'good enough' approach that seems to be dumbing down quality. I see pictures that I would be ashamed to show portrayed as 'professional' and I don't mean creative shots! Weddings seem to be particularly affected by this phenomenon in my area. I see a number of ads for photographers that pay $50 or so per night and they want all the images handed over with unlimited rights.

The second issue is the move towards the belief that copyright doesn't exist! Whether this is in using other people's images, or in the above scenario where e.g. weddings, events, etc are requiring (or at least requesting - are they actually getting them?) high quality images handed over carte blanche.

... Or some other tool :-) I believe that tools that manage flow e.g. Lightroom, will increasingly become the tool of choice for photographers and PS will be the 'last resort' for special work.

True. Though the few that I know that do this, do so more in hope than in comfort of the resulting revenue.

See d). The proliferation of folks with a camera who DO NOT charge at all is a fundamental change. There is an increasingly broad expectation that 'digital is free' - or close to it. Again, I see ads for this all the time. Photographers are not immune either, a local pro with a good reputation advertised for a location in which to shoot 'as he had no budget', though presumably he was being paid.

Very! A friend continues to sell this way - primarily at art fairs etc. He barely covered his costs last year. Again, with selling prices of prints as low as $25 - $35 for a 8x10, you need a LOT of volume to make a living that way. And volume doesn't seem to have been increased by lower prices. Fragmentation is the result that I see.

My aim is to sell large prints (circa 24 x 36) at what I regard as a reasonable price. But I have to sell a thousand a year to make the household average income! Twenty prints EVERY week. At a premium price!

Without a doubt. And some are very good, but many are not. I suspect from my interactions (both with and AS the client) that many costs are being moved elsewhere in the value chain. For example, low cost photography prodcuses a poor image that someone else in the chain needs to be paid to correct and make good enough to use. I have seen that happen many times.

Ish! I believe that the 'understanding' is simplistic. For example, they understand that the cost of film etc is reduced or zero and use that as a lever to negotiate. However they, like many new digital photographers, do NOT underatsnd workflow, color, etc, etc. I have had marketing folks who can't get their head around why they need different resolutions for web and print, why the can't scale their jpgs, etc, etc.....

I believe - and hope - that quality will out as it has in similar technologies such as desktop publishing, and similar technology fueled changes.

Cheers

Graham

___________________________________________________________________________

I too am a long time amateur who has just recently turned professional. Dan, your books and the input of the other members this list have been an invaluable source of knowledge. Contrary to the feeling of some in this thread I see an enormous wealth of opportunity to successfully practice this craft.

The speed of current technological advancement mandates a highly adaptive business model, no matter what your profession. The successful ones embrace the new technology, read the market conditions and adjust their model to take advantage of the areas that hold high value. Evolve or die out.

The modern photographer, just like any fine craftsman, must be able to use the tools of the trade in an efficient and expert manner to derive profit. As those tools evolve, so must the craftsman. The tools available--and accessible to the typical pro--are better than ever. The savvy professional will figure out how to exploit a niche with those tools.

One of the previous posters mentioned copyright issues. Here I think is an area that is going to require a major paradigm shift. As many musicians and filmmakers are discovering, the dependency upon distributing large quantities of work to derive profit is largely a failing model. Not only are consumers demanding that costs for producing images go down, but they fully expect that they should be able to reproduce that image at will. More importantly, as the music and film distributors are currently discovering, the enormous cost of trying to prevent piracy is not only an exercise in futility, but it actually tends to alienate your customers! Quite a sad state of affairs, but one anyone involved in the creation of digital content should come to grips with.

Again, the important element in success is finding the area of high value, and marketing that to the right customer. While it is true that Joe Blow can pick up a Rebel XT and manage to get one good shot out of 1000, it is only the pro with a deep understanding of the technology at hand and a fundamental control of light that can produce unique, artistic image that holds high value. And it is the creation of that image, not the distribution, that is the area where profit must be derived. There will always be customers for those who understand this.

This is due to the availability of new methods and channels to show and sell work. Can a professional exploit these channels as well? Of course, if he can find value!

But, many others demand a higher level of quality.

I disagree. They may understand a few basic elements, but if anything the demands of the profession require an even broader knowledge of subjects including image capture, computer technology, and, of course color management!

What is being culled out of the industry is those tasks that can somehow be "automated", a repeatable setup that produces consistent results. Are there many members of *this* list that rely on that kind of cookie-cutter work to derive their profit? I don't think so...

Regards,

Bruce Albrecht

___________________________________________________________________________

****FORWARDED MESSAGE****

From:

To: Dan Margulis

Subject: Re: [colortheory] Dan's Photographer Thread, 2007 version

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:49 PM

Dear Dan,

I wanted to respond to this thread, but I'm not sure I want to sign my name. If you think my responses are worth posting please do so without my name.

I've been slowly absorbing the new information in your book. Congratulations on another excellent update. With the changes in CS3 and in Raw processing modules I hope you'll reconsider this being the last version and eventually update this book one more time once it becomes clear how these changes should effect one's work.

Best regards,

(name deleted)

I'm chiming in rather late. It's been interesting to see other's views. I think my viewpoint is somewhat different as I've been around a long time in one of the toughest markets [name of large city] and have perhaps lived through more ups and downs in the business than most. The business of advertising still-life photography has changed so much in the last 10 years that it seems much quainter and farther in the past than it actually is.

Retrenchment, yes. Gone out of business, I'm not so sure. Photographer friends and I joke that since we're self employed there's no one to tell us we're out of a job. I see a lot of photographers trying to re-invent themselves or their business models to find a way to return to profitability. Ironically, some of the changes that make business worse have also made it possible to survive with less income. It has also become easier to enter the business with less knowledge or capital than ever before. I believe that, even with some attrition, there are still more photographers out there today trying to make a living. Also, I believe that what constitutes a "living" has changed. When I started in the business a photographer expected to earn enough to keep a decent studio, have a full time assistant, have a nice place to live and, hopefully, be able to put enough aside enough to send kids to college and eventually retire. Today I see lots of upcoming photographers who consider themselves professionals although they still live with roommates and barely make enough to make ends meet. With the internet it's very inexpensive to put up a nice site, and with a moderate digital camera like the Canon 5D or even a 30D they can take test pictures that look as good on the internet as those from much more expensive systems, even if they wouldn't look as good in a print advertising situation. There are a lot of talented people out there competing for fewer jobs and in past years I have no doubt that many of these people would have succeeded. Of course, they believe this is temporary, but it frequently isn't and in the mean time more and more I compete with these people for jobs.

Years ago I needed a large studio, a studio manager, and a couple of assistants to get all my work done. We shot film and would generally put sets up well before the shoot so we could shoot film tests and then leave them up until the film came back (2 hours in [name of city]). We needed the space and equipment to have several sets up at the same time to keep the workflow going. Today I'm able to do as much work and end up taking home the same money with no studio and no full time employees. With digital I can usually set up and strike in the same day, making rental studios reasonable in cost. I've also added more post production work which reduced the days I need to be in a studio while making money. I won't say it's as much fun.

In the past it was also much more expensive to even create a portfolio. Transparency portfolios were the style and nothing was more impressive than showing a book of mounted 8 x 10 chromes. I generally shot tests in 8 x 10, or in 4 x 5 when 8 x 10 wasn't practical and had them duped up to 8 x 10. The film costs of a test shot were considerable and to show what I could do I'd spend a lot of money on props and backgrounds. Once a shot was finished I needed at least a half dozen copies. We needed multiple books because there were no websites to show our work and prospective clients generally kept a book for several days. I'd either need to shoot multiple sheets of film of what I hoped was the final shot or have expensive high quality dupes made. Mounting the chromes in custom mats was also time consuming and helped justify the full time employees. The final cost of adding a singe shot to the portfolio with film, props, dupes and labor could be thousands of dollars. Today, of course, 8 x 10 film presentations are mostly extinct. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Photoshop and a $400 printer can make spectacular looking prints. The style is for simpler shots with minimal propping which a talented photographer can produce with their digital camera for next to nothing.

All of these factors have helped marginally profitable photographers to remain in the business and compete for jobs by offering a lower price than someone who still maintains a large facility, but doesn't stay busy. The net effect is that the slow periods have increased for many and the penalty for having a large business in a slow down have increased. I know several photographers who still maintain (smaller) studios who expect this studio to be their last. When their leases expire and rents increase they don't expect to be making enough to justify the expense.

I believe the first sentence is true, however, "the grass is always greener" and from other responses I'd say that many portrait and wedding photographer's have had their own problems. I think all professional photographer's are challenged by what I see as the segmenting of the business into a small high end and huge low end with no middle. At the high end quality is still respected and fees have remained high. At the low end Photography has become a commodity where OK is good enough and low price rules. In todays market where the cost of entry is low, it's easy to get multiple quotes (thanks to the internet), and many needs can be fulfilled for little or not cost, there's no lowest price other than what a buyer is willing to pay. The fact that there's not enough good work for a large pool of competent photographer's means that to survive many are working for rates that allow savvy buyers to maintain adequate quality for their perceived needs.

I agree. However, I'd add that there's a lot of luck involved too. Over the years I've had both good luck and bad luck. When I've had good luck I've tended to attribute it to talent and smarts-- until the luck or market conditions change. When you have bad luck you really never know if it's truly bad luck (and maybe about to change) or making marketing mistakes or not working hard enough, etc. So we tend to beat up on ourselves even when other's around us are not doing well. After all, there's always some out there doing well and they generally don't think it's just because of luck. After all, in this business, luck doesn't help unless you are also talented and smart enough to take advantage of it.

Probably true, except at the high end.

I'm not sure this is totally true. I can't imagine anyone coming up in the business today to succeed without Photoshop skills. Those either at the high end or who have a business based on hiring others to shoot for them probably can get by fine without it.

I think this is actually getting harder unless you have a specific specialty (for example underwater photography) where buyers will find you through a "Google" search when looking for exactly what you have to sell. All the stock photographers that I know have seen their stock sales decrease in recent years. There's just so much stock out there. It's being added to at a faster and faster rate, and it's so cheap to keep it on-line that anything that sells even a small amount will stay on-line. Before the internet I would get calls asking if I had particular stock available based on my specialties. Prices were always good. Once I had a website, but before the growth of the big stock houses, I'd get calls asking if particular pictures on the site were available for stock. Nowadays I only get inquiries about stock if they can't find what they need from a search of what's available at the large stock houses or royalty free. The requests have become more and more specific and I'm less likely to have exactly what they need.

No question. I joke that during the "sexual revolution" hookers must have felt like I do now. Also, more clients are fulfilling there basic needs using their own cameras. Sometimes I'll shoot one very difficult shot for a project, but they shoot the simpler shots themselves. In the past the simpler shots for a large project were frequently actually more profitable from a purely dollars per hour viewpoint. We did the hard shots for the love of doing great work and put a lot more into it. Today more is expected for less.

Making money as an art photographer has always been difficult. Many or most commercial photographers become commercial photographers because they like taking pictures, but need to make money and don't think they can make enough as artists. The few pure art photographers that I know either get by on very little or are heavily involved in marketing themselves and also acknowledge a good bit of luck. A number of art photographers also take commercial work or teach, and use their "love" as a marketing tool to increase their perceived value in the market place. They don't make enough money from the art sales to make a living, but the art photography gives them the credibility to get higher paying advertising assignment and/or enter the lucrative lecture circuit, speaking to hopeful future photographers and serious amateurs.

Sure. Years ago I could even make money selling my travel pictures as stock just because I had the connections and savvy to have the images available though a stock agency. There's no money to be made from these kinds of "found" pictures any more because so much of it is out there and being added to all the time by talented amateurs.

I think it depends on the area of the business we're talking about. Clients have never been good (or cared) about our costs of doing business.

___________________________________________________________________________

Having read what the list had to say in response to the points I posted for discussion on 19 February, here are my own comments.

First, to those suggesting that I ask the questions in a photographer-oriented forum: I believe that a multidisciplinary forum like this one would likely get a less politicized response. These questions that I posed are primarily of observed fact, not opinion. If there are points with which *nobody* on this list disagrees, it's unlikely we'd find disagreement elsewhere. If I had included some statement like this: "today's photographer is too apt to forget that the client is interested in the final result, not how the result was achieved," that's the sort of thing that would likely get a different response elsewhere.

Now, the specific items:

I was surprised not to see unanimous agreement with this point. I have been receiving sad tale after sad tale over the last few years from qualified photographers who are being phased out by the companies that used to send work to them and have now decided they'll hire somebody out of school as a house photographer. Also, bad news for photographers but good news for the rest of us: in the past six years many top photographers have become educators and/or have written books. Several are my friends, and they've told me that they needed to make the shift because business was so bad. The result has been a marked improvement in the quality of instruction available, and also in the technical level of the Photoshop books being written. It is, however, a commentary on the state of the industry, because except for the very top level, one can't make a lot of money writing books or teaching.

Every setting in which I teach I notice that the percentage of professional photographers is down (even as the percentage of serious amateurs increases). This list has more than doubled in size since 2001, but fewer professional photographers took part in this thread than in the one in 2001.