Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory - Market Conditions for Professional Photographers
From: Dan Margulis, 76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 10:55 PM
RE: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
Folks,For a forthcoming column on the state of the market for professional photographers, I'd appreciate comments from the photographers on this list.
1) At a website run by an association of editorial freelance photographers, the astounding assertion is made that the typical day rate for such photographers is the same as it was in 1981, to wit, around $350 a day. Furthermore, that publishers are now more aggressive in demanding all rights to images.
The second part I know is true, but can the first part possibly be right? Have fees generally been that depressed? I'm not limiting this to editorial work, but to contract work of all kinds. Has it been possible to raise fees any significant amount over the last decade, say?
2) I am intending to make certain general factual statements about the market for independent photographers. If you *disagree* with any of these, I'd love to know why, and it can go to me privately or to the list as a whole, whichever you like.
a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but none to my knowledge feel that business was great. A number of those who did not do well have left the business.
b) Those who have done well either are at the top quality level, have a group of three or more photographers, or have branched out into nontraditional areas, such as taking charge of the client's printing.
c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.
d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know Photoshop.
e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock. Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has past.
f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer hungry enough to do it for that price.
Thanks for any feedback.
Dan Margulis
From: tflash, tflash@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 2:59 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
Dan,I'll play, but I speak only from my own quirky perspective, which I wouldn't claim is representative of anybody else's, let alone the "industry" at large. I do what would probably be considered middle to high end commercial work for just a handful of clients. A one man band. My income changes radically when one or two clients sneeze, so it's hard for me to gauge what's really going on out there.
> 1) At a website run by an association of editorial freelance photographers,
> the astounding assertion is made that the typical day rate for such
> photographers is the same as it was in 1981, to wit, around $350 a day.
> Furthermore, that publishers are now more aggressive in demanding all
> rights to images.Check the website of Photo District News. I saw an article a month or three back that BusinessWeek Mag shook up the industry recently by jumping their day rate up to $1000/day, and not for Work For Hire, though it *may* include Electronic Usage rights.
> > The second part I know is true, but can the first part possibly be right?
> Have fees generally been that depressed? I'm not limiting this to editorial
> work, but to contract work of all kinds. Has it been possible to raise fees
> any significant amount over the last decade, say?I have only been in business the last decade, and have raised my fee's with each new client. Tough to raise it to the old ones, but I did. However they understood it was because I started low - commensurate with experience.
> 2) I am intending to make certain general factual statements about the
> market for independent photographers. If you *disagree* with any of these,
> I'd love to know why, and it can go to me privately or to the list as a
> whole, whichever you like.
>
> a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the
> graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but
> none to my knowledge feel that business was great.I'm not sure what the scope of "contract" work is, but I know a lot of wedding photographers who've been doing great in the last five years.
However, I'd also say it's probably true that the internet has been a greater boon to graphic designers than it has for photographers.
When there's a lot of disposable income it does get spent on advertising, catalogs, weddings, etc. Are you speaking to a specific market segment or what?
> A number of those who did not do well have left the business.
Yes, but isn't this a universal truth for any business? At this point I think it's fair to ask, have you considered speaking with representatives of the larger photography associations? APA, ASMP, PPA, would be three I'd call first to see if they've done surveys of their members.
> b) Those who have done well either are at the top quality level, have a
> group of three or more photographers, or have branched out into
> nontraditional areas, such as taking charge of the client's printing.I'd guess those who've done well are those who've created a distinctive look to their work, engendered good relationships with their existing clients, and successfully marketed their services to a broad user base. Those other things are *less* important.
I think the crux of your questions is this: has photography become more of a commodity than it was 10 years ago? I don't know.
> > c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up
> to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.
>
> d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know
> Photoshop.As to the above three, I'd guess it's going that way, but it's not there yet. I think the greatest move in this direction has been for the large scale catalog houses, and in-house photo departments for large retail chains.
I do get asked about digital photography from time to time, and have done some, and I've lost some, but my bread and butter is still medium and large format transparency film. My clients may want to multipurpose my images for duratrans, billboards, or ads. These clients feel that film is still the superior medium for this size/caliber work. The 6MP digital backs don't give a large enough file size, and the scanning backs are a nightmare for use with detailed lighting of small objects (I shoot a lot of jewelry), with the trouble they have getting decent DOF without a ton of light.
> e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's
> virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock.
> Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has
> past.Probably true. 15 years ago people were trumpeting stock as the holy grail for photographers, but the royalty-free stuff definitely put a damper on that.
> f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little
> someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer
> hungry enough to do it for that price.This is also as true for photography as for other professions. Look, if you try hard enough you can probably shop around and find a doctor to come to your house and pull a bullet from your chest for $50 too. I'd say your assumption is more true (as you said) for the lower end of the spectrum than the upper. There are many ad agencies that still want a fancy photographer with a Continental name, that only shoots in a $2500/day rental studio with a $10,000/day fee, for those special clients. I doubt they care about the cost of film scans.
I guess I'm saying I think the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle is getting glutted.
Yes, a savvy photographer can position himself as a full service imaging provider in a way he couldn't 10 years ago, but I don't think it's mandatory. Surely being able to spec a job, including retouching and digital file creation is necessary, but I don't know that the photographer has to actually *do* it all in house. Some clients will want this, but not as a rule.
If your premise is that there are more photographers today than there were ten years ago, and they are fighting for the same amount of work, I'd say that's essentially true. If your premise is that photographers will more and more be asked to assume responsibility for managing the image further and further down the line, and stepping on the toes of prepress shops and printers in the process, I wholeheartedly agree. Especially as the cost of technology drops.
Leads me to wonder about couple of things. Will you be writing a similar piece about the bottom falling out of the service bureau industry in ten years? Will photographers be able to bill out for their services at the same rates as the service bureaus? Probably not. So who will make the money, and who will save the money? Looks like fodder for another article.
Todd Flashner
PS, sorry if you were talking about a totally different segment of the industry than me.
From: "Andrew S. Webb", andrew@webbwork.com
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 1:40 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
Dan wrote:From: Christopher Zsarnay, chris@zstudios.com>e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's
>virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock.
>Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has
>past.I worked at a biggish pro lab in Colorado (PhotoCraft), and they have several very successful clients who shoot stock only. I can provide you with quantities of film shot per month and possibly names if you would like. i did get the impression that they really didn't do anything else _at all_, including sleep.<g>
>f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little
>someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer
>hungry enough to do it for that price.I have seen this happen many times. The general public expectations for quality have gone WAY down; those of low- to medium-end designers and art directors have dropped some, too. I think this is a direct result of the popularization of desktop digital imaging/design and cheap stock: The other week I saw the same cruddy stock image in three different ads! Take a look at the crappy drop shadows you see everywhere. Wait a week or two and you'll start to recognize Photoshop 6 layer styles in ads all over. I better shut up before I start to rant about teddy-bear art and Disney. Ooooo erm ahhhh rrrrrr.
-Andrew Webb
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 11:45 PM
RE: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
Dan asked:
>>1) At a website run by an association of editorial freelance photographers, the astounding assertion is made that the typical day rate for such photographers is the same as it was in 1981, to wit, around $350 a day. Furthermore, that publishers are now more aggressive in demanding all rights to images.>>>I don't know about this, but day rates for commercial photography have increased since then.
>>a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but none to my knowledge feel that business was great. A number of those who did not do well have left the business.>>
> I disagree, the last 5 years of the decade were much better then the first 5. Once I switched over to shooting digitally business increased along with increased fees
>>c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.>>
>disagree. I do much more for my clients now compared to when we "just shot film" We now do color corrections, retouching, photo composites, CMYK conversions, Archiving of Images, Web sites, and more. Again, all billable services that were done by someone else in the chain. Now we do it!!
>>d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know Photoshop. >>
>You can still be a viable Professional but Clients are expecting a digital knowledge and expect that you know your way around Photoshop.
>>e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock. Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has past.>>
>I make 1% a year "if that much" selling stock images and the rest is assignment
>>f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer hungry enough to do it for that price.>>
>This has always been the case in photography and will never change
--
Christopher Zsarnay/Z Studios
Digital Photography & Imaging
5600 Everglades St. A Ventura, CA 93003
ph/805.644.5554 fax/805.644.0531chris@zstudios.com
http://www.zstudios.com
From: David Riecks, david@riecks.com
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 10:09 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
At 10:52 PM 01/12/2001 -0500, Dan Margulis wrote:
>1) At a website run by an association of editorial freelance photographers,
>the astounding assertion is made that the typical day rate for such
>photographers is the same as it was in 1981, to wit, around $350 a day.
>Furthermore, that publishers are now more aggressive in demanding all
>rights to images.The editorial rates at the major publishers have remained pretty stagnant according to my colleagues. I believe Time will still start negotiations at $400 for most assignments. It seems that the bigger the publisher the less they will offer unless you stand your ground. Why? Because there still are photographers that have been around for several years that would practically GIVE Time or Newsweek their work for next to nothing just for the exposure! I do more work for trade magazines, and they will, for the most part, make claims of being "poor" as much today as they did 10 years ago. The big difference is that they often will also try for an end run rights grab at the same time (even more so if you are a writer). Most of this has happened in the last few years with them wanting internet rights, but is also fueled by the Tasini vs. NYT decision (publishers want to CYA if the decision is upheld).
FYI, Todd Flashner mentioned the PDN article about Businessweek. The Editorial Photographers group was started by eight or nine photographers that said no to Businessweeks low pay and attempt to gain more rights. There are several thousand photographers that are on the listserv or digest, and are being educated about how to improve their business practices. One of the biggest and first efforts of the EP board was to negotiate a new contract with Businessweek on behalf of the other photographers. Businessweek agreed to pay more but the photographers are giving up a number of additional rights for this higher fee (lower negotiated fees on re-use in international editions, reprints, etc). It's not at all certain how this will work out, but for now it's probably a better deal for photographers. It's also helping to leverage other editorial publishers to increase their rates. I believe Forbes has or is considering something similar. Negotiations are still ongoing with Time.
>The second part I know is true, but can the first part possibly be right?
>Have fees generally been that depressed? I'm not limiting this to editorial >work, but to contract work of all kinds. Has it been possible to raise fees
>any significant amount over the last decade, say?In terms of commercial work, I've worked hard to increase my rates over the years. Most of my clients understand that in order for me to stay in business there will have to be some cost of living and inflation adjustments. It's been easier to get rate increases in materials as they do understand that the costs for film, processing, shipping, phones, travel have increased. Digital presents a new challenge as clients tend to see these as "fixed" expenses for photographers and different from the "variable" expenses of film and processing. I've stuck with film for present, as it's easier to add on value by scanning and retouching and it's easier to hold on to the original film (especially if there is stock potential).
>a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the
>graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but
>none to my knowledge feel that business was great. A number of those who
>did not do well have left the business.Agreed, I've seen more growth in the "value-added" segments of my work than in fees for assignments or stock.
>b) Those who have done well either are at the top quality level, have a
>group of three or more photographers, or have branched out into
>nontraditional areas, such as taking charge of the client's printing.Agreed.
>c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up
>to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.Not to mention that they are missing out on additional revenue streams.
>d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know
>Photoshop.Also knowing a number of other imaging programs, as well as layout packages can be very useful as well. Some designers that are just starting to use scans are more likely to hire you if you can help them or give them tips on how to get the best reproduction, better workflow, etc.
>e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's
>virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock.
>Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has
>past.I know that there are some photographers doing this, but they are few and far between. It's not that different from actors and musicians; the top 20 percent make 80 percent of the money...
>f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little
>someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer
>hungry enough to do it for that price.This has been what EP (editorial photographers) has been trying to stave off through education. ASMP, PPA and other professional organizations are doing what they can, but you can't force your members to comply with good business practices.
David
David Riecks * david@riecks.com
701 W. Washington St * Midwest/Chicago ASMP
Champaign, IL 61820 *
ph/fax 217-239-FOTO(3686) * http://www.riecks.com/
From: Kevin Bubbenmoyer, kbphoto@fast.net
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 3:08 PM
RE: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
The thread on photographer's fees has been extremely interesting if not extremely depressing. Having been a commercial photographer for over 25 years and maintaining a decent sized studio (4500 sq ft), it's been interesting to read some of the other people having the same changes in their business as myself. Adding services to offset the loss of "shooting revenue" seems to be the sign of the times. As the pendulum swings towards corporations buying digital cameras and doing the work themselves, a lot of bread and butter type of work is disappearing. The lack of need, or appreciation, for quality images due to the proliference of internet use has also contributed to the photographer's downfall. Some people have commented that they felt the market was still growing because they've been personally able to raise their rates. The fact is photographer's rates haven't really changed at all in 20 years. That actually spells out a dramatic decline in income. Certainly I, and others, have raised their fees as their careers progressed, but the pinnacle we're trying to reach has definitely been eroded away.Supply and demand is certainly the most simplistic way of explaining it all. Generations of photographers have produced so many images that we are all on visual overload. Different market segments have been affected to different degrees. Annual report, lifestyle, editorial, and advertising work have all been affected by the massive amount of generic images. Surely there are always a few photogs in each area who are doing well (for the time being) but the groups in general have been hit hard. Even with the gains in editorial rates (if they really are gains) the amount they pay I don't even consider to be above the poverty level. Young photographers, desperate to get a foot in the door will live hand to mouth to achieve their goals. Most people working for themselves don't realize how much money you have to make to buy a nice house, pay for healthcare, pay for the kids' college tuitions, plan for retirement (you're not hot forever), etc, etc, etc. What happens to 90 percent of the young shooters trying to get started by low balling? They eventually realize themselves that it won't work and go to work for a large company. And so the spiral continues downward.
Is there an answer to all of these problems? No. Photography continues to become more and more of a commodity item. As with most industries only the really large operations will survive. As a culture we generally seem to support the large corporations more than the "mom and pop" shops in many different areas. This seems to be the case in everything from hardware stores to stock agencies. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody came up with a drive thru product phortography studio. Hopefully, I've come up with something else by then.
From: berga@pobox.com, berga@pobox.com
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 2:29 PM
RE: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
In Brazil we have the same conditions. We think that the problem is only here but the problem is the same. In 30 years of profession I have watched a lot of this.
Good luck to allFernando Bergamaschi - Photographer in Brazil
email --- berga@photoindustrial.com
home page 1 --- http://people.delphi.com/heinst/berga/
home page 2 --- http://www.photoindustrial.com/Tel.:55 51 4802499 - 99638907
Fax :55 51 2410051ICQ 2229693
From: Andrew Rodney, andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 10:48 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
on 1/12/01 8:52 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
> 1) At a website run by an association of editorial freelance photographers,
> the astounding assertion is made that the typical day rate for such
> photographers is the same as it was in 1981, to wit, around $350 a day.
> Furthermore, that publishers are now more aggressive in demanding all
> rights to images.The key word here is "Editorial." That segment of the market earns about the lowest fees in the profession and has continued to do so for decades. I started shooting editorial for magazines like Forbes just out of photo school (we're talking the early 80's). $350 was about what I got paid but young photographers do it for the exposure and for book pieces. It's a launching pad for many. My goal was always to shoot advertising which was what I was trained to do but I had to start somewhere. What was alarming was a few years latter, when I stopped shooting editorial and got real paying jobs, the market changed once again to the benefit of the client and harm to the little guy (the photographers). When I shot for magazines, at least I was able to charge for all my expenses and I marked them up a ton (to give you an idea, back in 1983 or so, $25 for a roll of film on the invoice wasn't uncommon). I marked up processing, Polaroids etc. What did the big mag's do? They "demanded" that the editorial photographers purchase their film, Polaroid and processing on THEIR accounts in town thereby eliminating any chance of making a mark up. Worse, most photographers went along with it. They needed the work. Photographers are often their own worst enemies when it comes to business.
> The second part I know is true, but can the first part possibly be right?
> Have fees generally been that depressed? I'm not limiting this to editorial
> work, but to contract work of all kinds. Has it been possible to raise fees
> any significant amount over the last decade, say?You have to consider a few things. First of all, Pro photographers (at least those that do advertising or are hip to how to run a business) don't charge a fee per say. When I did work with agencies, the word "day rate" would NEVER enter the conversation. We sell photo rights! Example: Kodak comes to me and wants me to shoot a portrait of the CEO for the annual report. They get a one time use of that photo for the annual report and I base a fee on that use. Since I know the Annual Report is a pretty high end product I'm going to structure my fees higher than if they wanted to use the portrait for an in house brochure but far higher if it's going on a box of film. The bid/contract/invoice clearly state the intended use and there is always some kind of time limit (you can use it for a year). They then come back to me a year latter and pay for additional uses or for further usage over time. If they want to really make me happy and shower me with money, they may ask for what is called a "Buy Out" which means they want to own the image. That's going to cost a ton. Now, they may ask for "exclusive rights" which means I can't sell that use photo of the CEO to Forbes. Only Kodak can use the image but on a use by use basis. Bottom line, photographers don't (shouldn't) charge a "day rate" or anything but a usage fee. That's how stock agencies sell photo's by the way!
> > a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the
> graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but
> none to my knowledge feel that business was great. A number of those who
> did not do well have left the business.Don't take this too harshly Dan but in our conversations over the years (concerning the graphics "industry" and say color management), you like to sum up complex market changes with simplistic black and white analogies. If your readers don1t mind that... Let's take photography. I know that business very well as I made a comfortable living doing it for more than a decade and started from the bottom. Plus I continue to work with photographers and with organizations like the APA (Advertising Photographers of America) and ASMP. The photo industry is a lot like any other industry composed of freelance creative people (art directors, designers, artists, film makers etc). You have the cream of the crop who make huge amounts of money, are very talented and never need to worry about getting work. Herb Ritz makes a million dollars a year shooting JUST for Vanity Fair! This segment is maybe 5 percent. Then you have the hacks at the very bottom of the food chain. They under-cut each other, can't really shoot all that well and so forth. That may be 10 percent of the market. Between the bottom 10 and the upper 5 percent, you have every other photographer in varying degrees of success (a guy with a studio in Albuquerque doesn't have the same issues getting work or supporting a studio as the same kind of photographer in LA). But both have the same issues (getting work, making a profit, advertising to the clients in his area etc). The top 5 percent get more and more bucks each year. The hacks bring down the market a bit for the guys in the middle now and then. The middle group all strives to get the work from that large segment of shooters. Too many photographers, not enough work to support all of them. Some get a new digital camera and try and increase their "fees" in creative ways (charging an archive fee or burning CD's). Others want the work so bad that they give it away to get the job and support that new digital camera expenses. These guys drag down the "fees" unless they are so good or have such loyal customers that the art director always uses that shooter (this is common).
You also need to understand that there are specialties of photographers and like doctors, some specialists make a lot more than others (they have bigger nuts to crack each month too). A guy shooting cars will change a lot more than a guy that shoots people. Food photographers will charge a lot more than the guy who shoots annual reports on location. But they all use the usage as a base for their fees.
> c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up
> to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.To some degree yes. The top end can just shoot and go away. But they are not a dying breed, they are the top of the food chain and will always do what they are in demand to do, create images. It doesn't matter what kind of camera they use or if the own a computer or not or how fancy their studios are.
> d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know
> Photoshop.For the folks below that top 5 percent I'd agree. When I went to photo school (one of the best in the world) there was no Photoshop (or a Mac for that matter). We had ONE class in photo mechanical repro and most of us ditched that class to work on our projects in the darkroom. How ironic! Now it's really not all that important for photographers to learn how to print color in a wet darkroom but they better learn what a color separation is. I didn't really know what a color sep was even when I graduated. I never saw a printing press until I had to go to my very first press check for a promo piece of mine. So yes, times have changed and I think that for any photographer that has to be competitive (anyone not in the top 5 percent), they better know Photoshop AND CMYK!
> e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's
> virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock.
> Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has
> past.Depending on who you talk to, stock is either the savior or the worst thing to happen to the industry. I know many photographers that make a great living only selling stock. Two are living in this tiny town of Santa Fe in very comfortable and expensive homes. One sells stock he shot after decades of travel around the world (shooting editorial by the way in the 70's). He doesn't shoot any more. He has so many images at Tony Stone that sell daily he just has fun. The other guy travels all over the world shooting animals with his wife and then brings them into Photoshop to create images that were not possible in the first place. He still travels half a year or so but only where he wants to go. But each person isn't all that happy with the stock industry because the big cats that run the agencies (Getty) are lowering their commissions all the time. So once again, the little guy gets screwed by the very, very big guy holding the strings. What can these photographers do? So stock isn't the answer for very many. But if the question is, do ad agencies pick up the stock catalogs before they hire a shooter to create an image from scratch, I'd say yes in a big way. Assignment photography has probably gone down as stock has gone up. The good shrewd photographer that saw this coming and moved some or all of his efforts into stock saw a good payoff. But, there are quite a few photographers that do no assignment photographer and shot stock exclusively and make a very good living!
> f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little
> someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer
> hungry enough to do it for that price.Yes! And unlike us color geeks, EVERYONE is a photographer. The CEO who's brother has a old Nikon is a photographer, let's get him to shoot the front of the building for the annual report. To some degree that's true with imaging. Anyone with PageMaker or Quark isn't a designer. Anyone with Photoshop isn't capable of producing good color output. That doesn't stop people from believing that paying for professional work is necessary. You got a camera, you're a photographer. It's sad but true. And yes, there are many photographers that will stab another in the back (low ball) to get a job not realizing that they are undermining the entire industry. They are cutting their own throats. Photo buyers are by and large aware of this fact too and the shrewd art buyer can (and sometimes will) use this to keep their costs for photography down.
The solution to the problem is getting individual photographers to join together collectively as associations like the APA and ASMP have attempted to do. Unfortunately these organizations, while well meaning haven't been able to accomplish all that much for many reasons (some political, some due to convincing photographers to consider gathering as a whole and putting the idea of competition aside for the greater whole). Frankly, I don't see things getting better, only worse. I hoped back in the early 90's that digital imaging would be a new avenue for photographers to embrace a new way to create images and at the same time find ways to write some new rules to benefit their bottom line. That did happen to some but the vast majority continued to be their own worst enemy. Now we have big prepress shops putting in digital studios and hiring photographers who couldn't keep their own business running. Again the bug guys benefit and the little guy (especially the ones that hurt themselves) fall by the wayside. Photo evolution I guess. Survival of the fittest.
Andrew Rodney
From: James Steincamp, steiny@cavtel.net
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 2:17 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
I've joined the conversation late, and the subject has gone multithreaded... but I did want to add a few observations...> For the folks below that top 5 percent I'd agree. When I went to photo
> school (one of the best in the world) there was no Photoshop (or a Mac for
> that matter). We had ONE class in photo mechanical repro and most of us
> ditched that class to work on our projects in the darkroom.Brooks? At RIT we got plenty of technical background... at the time it seemed complete overkill... though in retrospect it was the technical information that helped me get over the Photoshop learning curve (or should I say, learning curves).
> it's really not all that important for photographers to learn how to print
> color in a wet darkroom but they better learn what a color separation is. I
> didn't really know what a color sep was even when I graduated.I think that the mechanical, hands-on time in the darkroom was invaluable. Learning how to make dye-transfer prints was invaluable in understanding the relationship of the dyes. Color correcting hundreds of prints over the course of a quarter helped heighten my sensitivity to color... and appreciate that every enlarger head in the building had its own version of color. Learning the Zone system taught me the difference between 'characterisation' and process control.
> Yes! And unlike us color geeks, EVERYONE is a photographer. The CEO who's
> brother has a old Nikon is a photographer, let's get him to shoot the front
> of the building for the annual report.I see this all the time (as an art director) and I spend a great deal of time advocating for good photography with our clients (and good printing, for that matter). It's corollary is the child of perquisite that goes to Brooks, RIT or Ryerson (in Toronto, whatever the spelling) with no experience and a whole host of Leica or Nikon gear. Who doesn't have to wait tables while working as an studio or location assistant. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there are two kinds of people who make it in photography... those who are willing to pay the rather steep price for entry & success or those who have everything given to them. Either way the end result is that I, more often than I would like to admit, wind up dealing with some kind of Helmut Newton-like ego-maniac that makes the working relationship painful.
But those that have indeed 'made-it' are quite often resting on their laurels and frankly quite terrified of the web, Photoshop or digital photography. Instead they rely on their relationships with art directors and editors to keep their stream of work coming... these folk (for the most part over 40) are, in turn, equally petrified of the web and all the latest multimedia technologies. Say 'Lingo' and they thing you mean DTP, Pica, dot-gain and whatnot.
> Anyone with PageMaker or Quark isn't a designer.
As a graphic designer I was told on several times that the only difference between a graphic designer and a secretary was a large collection of clip art and fonts; usually in incredulous response to my design fees. In my first two or three years on my own I found that the client felt it necessary to 'art direct' my work... in essence I was thought of as a cross between a production artist and secretary. Later, when I had learnt web-design and all the latest technical trickery I had a whole host of 'offers' from established firms (or other, older designers) to 'merge' as their client base was looking for web and multimedia design. The offers usually came just short of absolute highway robbery... at least from my perspective.
The bottom is falling out of the graphic design world and it is increasingly difficult to make it on your own... you take your pick of small jobs with inexperienced (read difficult) clients (and low pay) or competing with established firms for the lucrative projects.
Most folks I know have opted to either:
1) Band together in a loose confederation as a way to compete with the design firms/ad agencies.
2) Caved in and gone to work for those design firms/ad agencies (who pay insultingly low salaries on the assumption that their name on your resume compensates for slave wages and hours) or...
3) Have gone to work in corporate design departments (which pay a bit better, but the work is typically mind-numbingly boring).
It's the same thing you're pointing out in the photographic market... I once pitched a company only to loose out to the VP's sixteen year old nephew (who did it for free). I did enjoy the design featuring the cheesy spinning logo and the midi-version of 'Dixie' playing in the background.
So what's driving this trend? In my guestimation it's a combination of an insatiable appetite for visual images and design (on the part of society) and a diversified range of outlets in a marketplace that has turned creative work into a commodity (the same can be said for printers). I also feel that, while there is some genuinely good design work to be seen out there, the vast majority of design (TV, print or whatever) is pure rubbish.
And it seems harder to find qualified personnel lately. We've been looking for three months for a designer that has a solid understanding of four color process, spot colors, scoring and folding and so on... but we can't fill the position at any price: over a thousand Monster resumes and two headhunters... and we operate in a town with a major design school.
-james
From: Andrew Rodney, andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 3:11 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
on 1/13/01 12:16 PM, James Steincamp wrote:> Brooks?
We had an old saying where I went to school; Brooks graduates make great Art Center assistants
Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. > I think that the mechanical, hands-on time in the darkroom was invaluable.
It was somewhat important to me in that I was able to really evaluate what a good B&W or color print should look like and I was able to purchase great prints knowing this. But as a photographer, you don't make money in the darkroom, you make money shooting. Find a great lab, pay them, mark up the expense a few hundred percent and continue spending your time either shooting or getting more assignments. I think in the 3 years in photo school it feels like I spent a year in the darkroom
. Today it would be more logical and useful to simply do all the output for a class assignment digitally to an ink jet or dye sub. You can't beat 90 seconds a print for color. When I think of all the time and money I spent learning to print Ciba and then printing all my class assignments that way I want to cry. But back then, it was the only option of course. I haven't entered a darkroom to do my own printing since 1988 or so and I hope I never do again. Making great color prints to my Fuji Pictrography 3000 is a lot easier, quicker and I think the quality is just as good if not better. > As a graphic designer I was told on several times that the only difference
> between a graphic designer and a secretary was a large collection of clip
> art and fonts; usually in incredulous response to my design fees.Welcome to the club. Bad news for photographers is that far more people own some kind of camera than a computer and clip art but the insane logic you mention is the same.
> The bottom is falling out of the graphic design world and it is increasingly
> difficult to make it on your own... you take your pick of small jobs with
> inexperienced (read difficult) clients (and low pay) or competing with
> established firms for the lucrative projects.What's interesting is that when I went to Art Center in the early 80's, we were told by our instructors (the vast majority actually working pro's) we were all crazy to want to go into the photo business at this time. We had no idea how bad it would be 10-15 years latter. We were also told we'd work far harder than we did in school (not really true). The most interesting thing I heard was from a lab instructor that said to the class that if we really wanted to make good money, skip being a photographer and open a really good photo lab. He may have been right. Having photographers for customers however....
> I also feel that,
> while there is some genuinely good design work to be seen out there, the
> vast majority of design (TV, print or whatever) is pure rubbish.True indeed!
> And it seems harder to find qualified personnel lately.
That is bad news indeed. The schools still seem to be cranking out all kinds of grad's. What you report is troubling.
Andrew Rodney
From: Paul_Beck/abc@abcschoolsupply.com, Paul_Beck/abc@abcschoolsupply.com
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 3:11 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
Hopefully you can accept my contribution to the state of the photographers market. I've been out of town on press check.1) not only is the "day rate" not increased but IMO it has decreased since the time I entered the market as a professional. At the time I started shooting for myself I thought (maybe falsely) that I would eventually be seeing $800-1200 for commercial and advertising work.
2) a)I do not personally know any photographers that are desperately trying to find places to put their excess cash.
b)Be good, Be powerful, or be versatile.
c)If you can generate the business it is better to let someone else handle the small details.
d)Most of us do not generate the amount of business that allows us to pass all those details (and potential income) to someone else.
e)In order to survive, one must be flexible. Rather than shooting stock for the stock houses try creating your own royalty-free CD. (of course, Do as I say , not as I do. I haven't acted on this idea yet.)
f)In any business, in any industry, this has always been the case. The trick is to educate the client of the potential costs of this route. (I.E. you can put cheap parts in your car, but it will cost you more in tow bills, inconvenience and rework than to do it right the first time.)
In summary I would say that I agree with all those statements on a general level. I must state that my opinions while no less valid are those of a "sellout" photographer. About 5 years ago, I recognized that my business talents have something to be desired and went to work full-time for a catalog house. I don't regret this decision as I have been able to get the training to begin to understand the business world better. I have considered reentering the freelance market but am waiting for the industry to shake out a little with respect to who will take what roles (i.e. shooter, separations, prepress, printer) and in the meantime I continue to refine my digital and shooting skills and I am picking up some management training on the corporate dime. One must also consider location. (I certainly wouldn't want to be a photographer based out of Santa Barbara or Rochester, NY.) I am from Atlanta and have to consider that we have 4 different photo schools here that pump out graduates at the rate of about 125 per quarter. And most of those graduating are better prepared to be "do-all" photographers than your 40 + head in the sand star from the 80's.
Paul Beck
Photographer, separations, prepress, file management, network and systems admin
ABC School Supply
Duluth, GA
From: Alex Lippisch, alippisch@psiphoto.com
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 9:55 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Freelance Photographers
Dan Margulis wrote:
> Have fees generally been that depressed? I'm not limiting this to editorial
> work, but to contract work of all kinds. Has it been possible to raise fees
> any significant amount over the last decade, say?Yes it is sad but true.
I do strictly commercial photography and my fees have not gone up at all in over 10 years. For me this is due to increased competition, greatly increased use of stock (which is a direct result of the creation of desktop publishing and the internet), and (as if that wasn't bad enough!) now clients who have a digital camera of their own and someone on their staff who can shoot and produce web sites, sell sheets, etc.
> a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the > graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but
> none to my knowledge feel that business was great. A number of those who
> did not do well have left the business.Agree. Everyone I talk to says it has only gotten harder to make a living doing this. The big studios here in Cleveland Ohio seem to be doing well, due I think to their ability to offer in-house drum scanning, digital imaging with different cameras, set building, propping, high-end digital output prints, every kind of lens you can think of, and great lunches.
> b) Those who have done well either are at the top quality level, have a
> group of three or more photographers, or have branched out into
> nontraditional areas, such as taking charge of the client's printing.Agree, and the pie in the middle has gotten smaller and smaller.
> c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up
> to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.Agree. In fact they are already almost all gone here. Only the elite national level photogs can continue to do this.
> d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know
> Photoshop.Agree. That's the truth Ruth.
> e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's
> virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock.
> Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has
> past.Disagree. I know there are people out there who still make most of their income from stock. But, I wouldn't want to compete with RF discs these days. If fact they have replaced the bread-and-butter basic shot needs of all of my old clients.
> f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little
> someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer
> hungry enough to do it for that price.Agree. This is old hat, but is getting worse due to all of the above.
From: Dan Margulis, 76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2001, 12:45 PM
RE: [colortheory] Responses from photographers
Folks,I've continued to receive a few more responses to my questions aimed at professional photographers. I'll be in an airplane this afternoon and will try to put together my own response. In view of the interest, however, I thought you might like a more fleshed-out version of what the group was saying.
Therefore, I've repeated the statements and summarized the vote to date. Since people often didn't use the words "agree" or "disagree", and not everybody addressed each issue, I've used my judgment in deciding what constitutes "agreement." Below each vote, I've put a few direct quotes from list members that I found particularly interesting. Some of these you've seen already, some were sent to me privately, but all were from persons identifying themselves as professional photographers.
Dan Margulis
STATEMENT: a) The last five years were boom years for virtually every segment of the graphic arts *except* for professional photographers. Some did well, but none to my knowledge feel that business was great. A number of those who did not do well have left the business.
12 people agreed, 2 disagreed. I read one response as being neutral.
"I would have to say this is 100% correct. With the advent of more sophistic visual storytelling and Photoshop it seems the art and craft of quality images (i.e. the photographer) was discounted to some extent. Dan, you yourself state that 'There is no such thing as a bad original' in your book. That's not to say a grossly underexposed photo will ever look as good as a properly exposed one, just that the commodity of the photograph has been largely discounted."
"Agreed, I've seen more growth in the 'value-added' segments of my work than in fees for assignments or stock."
"Some people have commented that they felt the market was still growing because they've been personally able to raise their rates. The fact is photographer's rates haven't really changed at all in 20 years. That actually spells out a dramatic decline in income. Certainly I, and others, have raised their fees as their careers progressed, but the pinnacle we're trying to reach has definitely been eroded away."
"Well, you know, things probably look better in [city deleted] than elsewhere in the country, but I see plenty of busy solo shooters here. The demand for new imagery hasn't decreased has it?"
"True, for photographers, but I don't know how well service bureaus are doing either."
"I disagree, the last 5 years of the decade were much better then the first 5. Once I switched over to shooting digitally business increased along with increased fees"
STATEMENT: b) Those who have done well either are at the top quality level, have a group of three or more photographers, or have branched out into nontraditional areas, such as taking charge of the client's printing.
8 people agreed, 2 disagreed.
"I consider 'doing well' to mean you are still in business here in [city deleted]."
"I do much more for my clients now compared to when we 'just shot film' We now do color corrections, retouching, photo composites, CMYK conversions, Archiving of Images, Web sites, and more. Again, all billable services that were done by someone else in the chain. Now we do it!!"
"I'd guess those who've done well are those who've created a distinctive look to their work, engendered good relationships with their existing clients, and successfully marketed their services to a broad user base. Those other things are *less* important."
"Agree. Everyone I talk to says it has only gotten harder to make a living doing this. The big studios here in [city deleted] seem to be doing well, due I think to their ability to offer in-house drum scanning, digital imaging with different cameras, set building, propping, high-end digital output prints, every kind of lens you can think of, and great lunches."
STATEMENT: c) Those who insist that all they do is create photographs and that it's up to somebody else to do the rest are a dying breed.
I read nine people as agreeing (or agreeing with certain rare exceptions), two people agreeing partially and saying this is the trend, and one person disagreeing.
"Yes most definitely! When I started with digital capture that's exactly what I would say. Then I discovered I needed to take responsibility for reproducing color accurately, and consistently. When shooting digitally the photographer essentially becomes the "scanner operator". Good color and consistency comes with years of working in the color biz. Knowing how ink goes to paper is an art and craft. A photographer never, years ago, had any experience with CMYK. Having to learn about and take responsibility for color meant I needed to have a great working relationship with color gurus. I have learned a lot...but will never know it all!"
"Adding services to offset the loss of 'shooting revenue' seems to be the sign of the times. As the pendulum swings towards corporations buying digital cameras and doing the work themselves, a lot of bread and butter type of work is disappearing."
"Disagree here, but as the digital transition progresses, "creating a photograph" will be to deliver a re-touched, color balanced, color tagged file with a hard proof. Scanning will obviously die off with film. I don't see photographers becoming page designers or printers if that's what you're asking. Since so much of pre-press is based on scanning, that industry may get hurt."
"Yes, generally, a big chunk of business has been eroded by the use of stock of RF images. I estimate in these boom times, a drop of 50%. However this applies to general photography - not for photographers that have managed to change and diversify with the market - by this I mean digital. In other words, now I have income from digital prepress production that I did not have before. Heck, now I even do clipping paths for a living."
"But those that have indeed 'made-it' are quite often resting on their laurels and frankly quite terrified of the web, Photoshop or digital photography. Instead they rely on their relationships with art directors and editors to keep their stream of work coming... these folk (for the most part over 40) are, in turn, equally petrified of the web and all the latest multimedia technologies."
STATEMENT: d) It is not viable to be a professional photographer and not know Photoshop.
8 people agree fully, 4 can't agree at the moment but agree that this is the trend, 1 person disagrees.
"You can still be a viable Professional but Clients are expecting a digital knowledge and expect that you know your way around Photoshop."
"Yes, times have changed and I think that for any photographer that has to be competitive (anyone not in the top 5 percent), they better know Photoshop AND CMYK!"
"There are some photographers in [city deleted] that I know of that don't touch the computer at all. They hire people to do it for them. These folk are few and far between......"
"It may be critical for a professional photographer to 'know' Photoshop but, in our market anyway, it is not used anywhere close to a daily basis... the few photographers I know are split by digital enthusiasts and 'other'; it is currently still very much possible to be shooting nothing but film and never making a scan or a sep. At least in [city deleted]. Fortunately. Most of the photographers I know who ARE into Photoshop are not very good at it. Bad previous experiences are actually one of the barriers I encounter when I try to convince a client that I can shoot digitally."
STATEMENT: e) Owing to the large number of royalty-free stock CDs on the market, it's virtually impossible to make a living doing nothing but shooting stock. Stock sales still exist, of course, but the age of the stock specialist has past.
8 agreed, 3 disagreed, 1 was neutral.
"Stock was touted in the 80's as a magic way to generate income in perpetuity, and therefore many assignment photographers dabbled in stock, but the ones who made significant money were few. However, the growth of stock degraded the value and led to, inevitably in my opinion, royalty free, which has been an unmitigated disaster for photographers across the board, including stock photographers."
"I know that there are some photographers doing this, but they are few and far between. It's not that different from actors and musicians; the top 20 percent make 80 percent of the money."
"Stock always looked like a bad deal to me, so I've never done it. But it's especially true now, and I would agree with your statement."
"Disagree. I know there are people out there who still make most of their income from stock. But, I wouldn't want to compete with RF discs these days. If fact they have replaced the bread-and-butter basic shot needs of all of my old clients."
STATEMENT: f) The market is currently distorted by the fact that no matter how little someone wants to pay for photography, there's probably some photographer hungry enough to do it for that price.
14 people agreed, one disagreed.
"True. There are too many images, and therefore images are cheap to buy. Photographers are chasing too little work, and therefore are cheap to hire."
"I have seen this happen many times. The general public expectations for quality have gone WAY down; those of low- to medium-end designers and art directors have dropped some, too. I think this is a direct result of the popularization of desktop digital imaging/design and cheap stock: The other week I saw the same cruddy stock image in three different ads! Take a look at the crappy drop shadows you see everywhere. Wait a week or two and you'll start to recognize Photoshop 6 layer styles in ads all over."
"If your premise is that there are more photographers today than there were ten years ago, and they are fighting for the same amount of work, I'd say that's essentially true. If your premise is that photographers will more and more be asked to assume responsibility for managing the image further and further down the line, and stepping on the toes of prepress shops and printers in the process, I wholeheartedly agree. Especially as the cost of technology drops."
"With the advent of relatively inexpensive digital cameras, a number of individuals with no photographic background or even computer literacy have begun to enter the market and it has become commonplace for unedited videos or prints obtained from single frames generated from videos to be offered for sale. Although quality is recognized and appreciated by some, the vast majority of potential clients seem more than satisfied with rather poor products."
"Frankly, I don't see things getting better, only worse. I hoped back in the early 90's that digital imaging would be a new avenue for photographers to embrace a new way to create images and at the same time find ways to write some new rules to benefit their bottom line. That did happen to some but the vast majority continued to be their own worst enemy. Now we have big prepress shops putting in digital studios and hiring photographers who couldn't keep their own business running. Again the bug guys benefit and the little guy (especially the ones that hurt themselves) fall by the wayside. Photo evolution I guess. Survival of the fittest."
"I consider this sort of statement a 'red herring', so I guess I disagree. The market has always been 'distorted' by that fact. Photographers have been crying that song as long as I can remember. I do feel however, that's it's inevitable that digital editing and increasingly better digital cameras will hurt assignment photography. But I don't feel photography will be destroyed as an income producing profession in the same way, for example, that photography destroyed painting.... We are currently undergoing a paradigm shift, no question, but the lens is still the essential and defining common dominator to all commercial imaging practices, still and moving. Digital enhances, not changes, this fact, and craft and talent, as always, will command its price."
"What happens to 90 percent of the young shooters trying to get started by low balling? They eventually realize themselves that it won't work and go to work for a large company. And so the spiral continues downward."
"There's just an awful lot of people with cameras right now, and though more and more images are being published, there's still more supply than demand. And the 'good enough' standards have hit new lows. I don't hear 'we'll fix it in Photoshop' as much as I did 3-4 years ago (now that more people have a better idea of what pain they will endure fixing it in Photoshop), but still--you can bet a mediocre image in hand is going to get used before good money is spent at my studio making a better picture."
"I would say that I agree with all those statements on a general level. I must state that my opinions while no less valid are those of a 'sellout' photographer. About 5 years ago, I recognized that my business talents have something to be desired and went to work full-time for a catalog house. I don't regret this decision as I have been able to get the training to begin to understand the business world better. I have considered reentering the freelance market but am waiting for the industry to shake out a little with respect to who will take what roles (i.e. shooter, separations, prepress, printer) and in the meantime I continue to refine my digital and shooting skills and I am picking up some management training on the corporate dime."
From: Dan Margulis, 76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001, 8:28 PM
RE: [colortheory] Dan's response
The purpose of the questions I recently asked of professional photographers here was because I'm preparing a column that deals with the meaning of the advent of cheap digital cameras of good enough quality to be suitable for some professional work.While a significant number of people are already using these cameras in creative and intelligent ways, the word hasn't really leaked out to the general graphics public. When it does, one of the major consequences is clearly going to be, it's going to be a bad thing for most professional photographers, and for some it will be a catastrophic thing.
I was astounded and very grateful for the volume of responses, which in many cases were exceptionally thorough. I apologize that this is going to have to serve as a response to all of them.
The only real surprise was the number of stock specialists people reported knowing. I had really thought this was a dead trade, but apparently have to revise my thinking.
Of all that was posted, I agree most closely with the analysis of Andrew Rodney. There is an elite of perhaps five percent of the market who are so well positioned that they can play by their own rules. Then at the bottom there is a group populated by people such as one described by someone who wrote to me privately as "a guy that knows a bunch of people and uses a $5000 Nikon as a point and shoot."
These jokers at the bottom of the food chain are doing a great job of helping wreck things for the rest of the market. Not just by lowballing their job quotes out of desperation, but by representing to clients that they know what they're doing with Photoshop and digital cameras, and then disappointing them. This effect was pointed out by another correspondent, and I can verify it. I've run into several buyers who swear that they will never allow another photographer to handle a digital file, because a few months back a job was wrecked at great expense by some clown. This, to them, proves that all photographers are incompetent.
Because I expect this disruptive group to grow larger, I agree with Andrew that the situation is going to get worse. Much worse, I think, for those who won't take decisive action to improve their digital skills and to diversify their businesses.
I also agree with those pointing out that certain segments of the photographic market are doing much better than others. It's clear, too, from the correspondence that certain regions of the country are depressed as far as photographers as concerned and that others (such as New York) are holding their own.
There are also a couple of commonly expressed views with which I disagree. A number of people cited a customer mentality that accepts ever-worse images. I'm not seeing that. At the top of the field, images are better than they've ever been. There is certainly also a lot of garbage, but it mostly comes from people who are taking advantage of how cheap it is to publish color now. A small business throws 100 ghastly images onto the web or into a flyer and we all click our tongues and complain how standards have fallen.
In fact, that business's standards are the same as they always were. They would gladly have printed images just as bad five years ago, only the price to do so wasn't low enough. To say that standards have gone down, one would have to produce people who are producing worse color now than the same people produced several years ago, and IMHO such people are rare.
The idea that "we have a larger number of photographers chasing fewer images" is also incorrect. In fact, there's been a colossal increase in the number of images in use. I'd agree that there are more photographers (or people who think they're photographers) chasing them, but the big hurt is that a high percentage of these new images are handled by people who aren't photographers at all.
When you consider this increased number of images, and the fact that we've had a great economy for more than five years, it's amazing that things have been as bad as they were for photographers. Granted, many of you are doing OK and some considerably more than OK. Then again, you are somewhat of a vanguard group. The very fact that you're here indicates you realize the necessity of spending a lot of time educating yourselves, and this is more than can be said for typical photographers.
So, as a group you can be expected to be doing much better than average, and yet few of you are doing great, at least not in the sense of other professions in the graphic arts. Retouchers here in the New York region, for example, are making about double what they did five years ago, or at least they were until the market tanked.
The reason I'm writing this column specifically in April is that this is the five-year anniversary of a similar pair of articles I wrote under somewhat analogous circumstances. At that time, it was just becoming clear that studio digital photography was going to wipe out traditional catalog shoots, and that royalty-free stock photography was not just something for screen savers.
At that time many photographers were in a state of denial, but on the other hand they had a lot of things to deny. Dicomed, which was at that time the leading name in studio digital photography, had announced that real soon now they were going to have a field digital camera that would be infinitely better than any camera currently on this planet and that any photographer who didn't order one immediately would suffer the consequences. To this day, nobody has constructed a device to those specifications, and Dicomed is a happy memory.
A lot of people at that time said this new camera would never work, and that photographers had nothing to worry about. I wasn't sure that it wouldn't work, but I said it didn't matter, as follows:
"When a compatible and user-friendly better way emerges, though, those in the way of the locomotive had best watch out. That is the position of photographers today. They stand on the tracks, and the train of the digital revolution is headed right at them. Two of their choices are quite unpalatable. They can remain where they are and find out who will survive the inevitable collision. They can also cede their territory and their business, by stepping aside. "There exists, however, a third alternative: getting a running start, so that when the train roars by they can jump on board. With the industry reeling from several lean years, all we need now is a little more competition. Buying into Dicomed's technology will set one back more than $30,000, out of range for many photographers but low enough to attract printers and service bureaus who see a way to pick up business at the photographer's expense. Meanwhile, the explosion of digital stock libraries has wiped out most stock shooting assignments... "Suppose for a moment that this new [Dicomed] product doesn't work, and that effective digital field work remains pie in the sky. So what? There is still plenty of damage, even if digital stays confined to the studio. "Suppose that only 20 percent of film-based professional photography is lost to the digital interloper; suppose only ten? What do you think will happen when the same number of suppliers, if not more, chase after 90 percent of the former business?"
And, essentially, that's what happened. While every other graphics profession prospered, professional photography went into a recession. Some of the main factors:
*Service bureaus had the $30,000 it took to set up a digital studio, and many of them did so. When they did, they commonly hired college students as photographers. Also, since the object was to bring in film work, shooting was almost considered a sales expense: charge whatever it takes to bring the work in! If somebody else cuts photography prices 50%, cut ours 75%! If they come back and cut it 85%, we'll tell the client we'll do the shooting for free, as long as we get the film work!
*The advent of powerful enough computers to make Photoshop work on large files economical. Previously, serious color correction of such an image would cost several hundred dollars. This strong incentive to use quality photography has now pretty much vanished.
*Photographers aren't used to having to lay out serious dollars for equipment, particularly stuff that doesn't last a long time. But suddenly they had to consider substantial investments in computers and peripherals that everybody knew would be obsolete in a few years.
*Adopting digital technology, as we all now know, is learning intensive. This required a large, unpaid investment of time on the part of those who wanted to enjoy its benefits.
*And yet pioneers take a terrible risk. If the job looks bad in print, the client doesn't think "this person either doesn't know Photoshop or doesn't understand printing." The client thinks, "this is bad photography, and I need to hire somebody who can shoot better."
Something similar is happening to the market right now, only worse. Many photographers are in denial again. They say, obviously we are not going to be replaced by idiots shooting with these cheap toys. My own work isn't threatened!
It may not be threatened by the amateurs, and the amateurs may not take over anything like the majority of shoots, but even if 10 or 20 percent of work is lost to these people, it will be a bloodbath. It will affect principally those who only know how to shoot and haven't diversified their skills. And what those people will do is very clear. Those who do not welcome working at McDonald's and Burger King will find out who *your* clients are, and, in desperation, call them up and ask them if they wouldn't like to pay only half as much for photography.
Furthermore, we'll see the following:
*Design studios and quick printers will buy these cameras and tell the world that they now have a staff of expert photographers.
*Certain other professions will also get into the act. We are already seeing this with some realtors. They've figured out that houses sell better if they can post a few photos on the web. They're starting to realize that good-looking images sell better. Since, for a typical house, there's no budget to hire a professional photographer, this is all point-and-shoot with a sub-$1,000 digital, followed by some kind of rudimentary color correction. So, no loss of business for the professional--until the realtor discovers that he's good enough with Photoshop to try something more challenging. In the case of realtors, often they post crappy images on the web, but if they're selling something for a million dollars or more, they'll invest in a four-page color brochure, and will hire a professional to shoot the property. Or at least they *used* to hire a professional. In one firm I know, the realtor who makes the most use of web images has gotten so good at it that in these, and heaven knows how many other projects, they have no further need for a professional.
*To stay competitive, photographers will have to spend more money than ever before on equipment and more time than ever before on training.
*Service bureaus now recognize that you are not merely an inconvenience, but a competitor. Therefore, instead of just not caring whether you get work or not, they will actively discourage clients from dealing with you.
*Such work as remains up for grabs for professional shooters will be more difficult work. The reason is, if the job is simple, the client may be inclined to shoot it himself. He'll probably have to throw away 90% of what he shoots, but so what? There's no film cost. If he takes enough exposures, by sheer accident one or two of them will be of professional quality. One of the few times he'll consider using a professional is when the job is technically too difficult for him. Of course, it will also be technically difficult for the professional, and, of course, the client will want it at the same price as the easier jobs he has appropriated for himself.
*For the same reason, photographers will find themselves being asked to handle not only images they produce themselves, but those that their clients provide. This is going to create more of a headache than you might think. If you're used to working only with reasonably good images, getting accustomed to bad ones can be a considerable hassle, though worth it, I may say.
*There will be more and more small groups of people providing serious photography--among many other--services. This will be a natural result of the pressures that will be brought to bear on the solo photographer.
This situation is more negative than it was five years ago, because this time we don't expect an explosion in the use of imagery, and we certainly don't expect the booming economy we've seen over the last several years.
The astute person is going to have to be perhaps a photographer first and foremost, but one who is able to provide a complete package of image management if need be. This is going to encourage further loose affiliations--you can learn Photoshop, but can you learn to make an effective web page with it, can you place it in QXP or InDesign, can you negotiate with the printer, can you generate your own graphics in Illustrator or Freehand? Probably many of you can do some of these things, but few master all. It becomes necessary to have friends who can fill in the gaps in one's own expertise.
The new breed of practitioner--which many of you already are--faces a tough market, but there are some hopeful signs.
Are pictures a commodity, as one of you asked? They certainly are to some clients. But you probably aren't dealing with them, anyway. There's no shortage of clients who are interested in reasonable image quality. And people with a photography background are the most likely to be able to provide it.
Service providers have been dumbed down considerably in the last five years, just as photographers have gotten more sophisticated. Then, it would have been extremely unlikely that a photographer knew more about print reproduction than a printer or service bureau. Today, it's not so unthinkable.
The day when a lot of work is placed depending on how many expensive lunches are purchased for the buyer isn't over, but the practice is a lot less prevalent than it used to be. Now, it's more a matter of confidence. If you can persuade the client that his product will look the way he wants it to, you'll get the business. If I were a client, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussing these matters with a photographer than with some salesman, and it wouldn't matter a whit to me whether the photographer was the one who actually shot the images or not.
Of course, it's one thing to talk the talk, and another to walk the walk. That, presumably, is why people subscribe to this list. Those who are able to produce images effectively for a variety of purposes from a variety of sources will be able to prosper, if not as photographers, then at least as service providers with a strong specialty in photography.
My thanks again to all those who took so much time to reply, and apologies for how long it took me to post this response.
Dan Margulis
From: "Jim Domnitz", jdomnitz@studiod-online.com
Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001, 9:42 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Dan's response
For those that have not read this post by Dan, take the time. It is time to not be adversaries but business partners. We are building relationships where we are making the printers our friends. They are sending work to us and we are working in cooperation supplying high quality digital images. If a printer blames us for a poor job.. (they wanted the graphic work which we supplied and then they screwed up the job) they earn the non-recommend list. We have a number of printers that we try to get involved even before the shoot takes place. They have made our recommended list. With their input and cooperation all goes smooth and the job looks great. I also have committed tons of capital into equipment but sending an associate that I have to Dan's class and it was money well spent. Digital is here to stay.. if the printers want to be the K-marts of printing.. they can try to do the photography themselves.. if they want quality they are going to have to establish business relationships that all benefit in.
From: Bob Smith, rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 7:11 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Dan's response
Great post Dan... somewhat depressing to see all of the doom and gloom written into one neat package... and somewhat reassuring to realize that maybe at least I'm heading in the right direction.While in college almost 30 years ago, I had a part time job working at a camera store. I participated in numerous training sessions from the various photo suppliers and really learned a great deal through that experience. One thing that has stuck with me through my career is the point that every Kodak training session would try to hammer home. They constantly urged us to remember that what the customer is really buying is the end result... nice photos that represent family memories... not just a specific camera or some rolls of film.
Putting that way of thinking into my business as a photographer means reminding myself that what my clients are buying is a nice catalog, brochure or web site. Dealing with me or any other photographer is just a bump in the process. They don't care about the photos so much as the complete finished project and what its going to do for their business. To that end, its incumbent on me to deliver images to them that fit easily and painlessly into what they are trying to accomplish. Keeping yourself the client's easy solution has become MUCH more complicated but its still doable. It means meeting ever shrinking deadlines; keeping any kind of surprises to an absolute minimum; and providing images in whatever format fits directly into what the client is trying to accomplish... even when the client is unable to accurately specify what that format is.
Meeting deadlines has always been important. Its even more so now. As Dan points out, the client armed with time and a decent digital camera can experiment until he hits on a great image. I'm finding that time is one of my best allies. Clients who are otherwise creating some of their own images will still call me when under a deadline crunch. And fortunately severe deadline pressure is a part of this business that's not going away anytime soon. My challenge is to stay on top of it.
If there's one key word that describes the way I intend to prepare for future trends its "simplify". That may sound odd considering how complicated it is to learn these multitudes of new skills. I have a large studio loaded with odds and ends designed to help me solve all sorts of imaging problems. A digital workflow has seriously lessened the need for most of this. The aren't many problems I can't solve with a very simple hardware setup: good digital camera, few lenses, a few portable lights, a PowerBook, a decent inkjet printer, a CD burner and a web connection. Relying on such a system lets me be much more mobile and work faster than ever before.
> *Service bureaus had the $30,000 it took to set up a digital studio, and
> many of them did so. When they did, they commonly hired college students as
> photographers. Also, since the object was to bring in film work, shooting
> was almost considered a sales expense: charge whatever it takes to bring
> the work in! If somebody else cuts photography prices 50%, cut ours 75%! If
> they come back and cut it 85%, we'll tell the client we'll do the shooting
> for free, as long as we get the film work!To see how this model has played out for many years look to local television stations versus independent producers. In all but the major metro markets my experience has been that independent videographers have struggled much more than their still photographer counterparts. The cost of the most elaborate high end digital cameras is chump change compared to what early offerings of portable video gear cost. TV stations were the only ones that could afford the outlay and they used it to sell commercial time. They'd give away production (and it usually looks like it) to sell ad time. This makes it a very uphill battle for the independent producer to charge enough of a fee to run a viable business. I've done a number of shoots where I was working alongside a video crew. Often I was getting the higher fee even though there were more of them and they were lugging around several times as many dollars in equipment... and my fees are NOT high.
> Of all that was posted, I agree most closely with the analysis of Andrew
> Rodney.As do I. Belated kudos to Andrew for so concisely presenting an overview very similar to what I perceive.
Bob Smith
From: tflash, tflash@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 9:07 PM
RE: [colortheory] Re: Dan's response/APA survey
Dan,You may find this survey of APA (Advertising Photographers of America) members interesting. They were not surveyed on many of the questions you raised, but they were surveyed on fees, and digital imaging.
Brief highlights:
*Fees are well up, but more for the upper echelon than the lower.(pg. 7)
*52.5% of respondents have used a computer for imaging, though most don't
bill it out effectively.(pg. 11)
*By far the the greatest percentage of photographers (80%) spent less than
$10,000 on digital cameras (pg. 8)Here's the link:
http://apanational.com/news.html
click on "APA NATIONAL photographers survey" to download the PDF file.Todd Flashner
From: kasperphoto@earthlink.net, kasperphoto@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 6:47 PM
RE: Re: Dan's response
Hi,I have enjoyed reading the thoughts here and elsewhere regarding industry conditions. I have also been studying the business concepts that are widely used regarding the consolidation of industries and business competition in general.
I would like to offer a perspective that is a little different just to stir the mix of thoughts. Please do not think of this as a prediction as it is impossible for anyone to predict the future. It is only intended as an extrapolation of current trends and future business behavior that would be expected using accepted strategic principles. The internet is an enormous wild card and anything is possible. However, failure to strategize against a worst case scenario is probably our fatal mistake.
Examining our industry from a purely business strategic perspective, we are currently in a lull before a second and final wave of consolidation. The current two major consolidators are Corbis and Getty. But it is likely that others will enter the market or form alliances/mergers etc. with C&G.
I agree that photographers will continue to invest great deals of time and money in technology and the expansion of their business. But it is unlikely to enable them to prosper. Prospering in business terms means earning better than average returns on your investment. Returns greater than the cost of capital i.e. greater than alternative investments such as equities.
Prosper is defined in this way as it is necessary to do this to support both a business and a lifestyle over the long term. Otherwise one or the other will suffer. Usually, the lifestyle suffers especially as we age.
C&G have been consolidating the stock photography marketplace for the last five years. They used leveraged revenue from RF to buy up the major competitors. They are now in the process of digesting them and tweaking operations for efficiency. They are also returning a lot of images to photographers. It seemed foolish to buy those agencies then hand the images back to the photographers so I did some research as to what they may be up to.
Corbis doesn't say as much publicly as it is privately owned by Bill Gates but Getty has the stated goal of delivering images and services to clients directly online. The problem they have is that clients are not yet fully ready and willing to go fully online with images and services. So, having bought out all the major competitors they are returning work to photographers to "invite" them to enter the marketplace themselves through their own website etc.
They may be doing this to get us to develop the online market for them at our expense. Once this market is robust enough to be profitably consolidated they will swoop in with an array of image products and services that will be cheaper, faster etc. than any individual photographer can compete with.
Revenue from things such as RF and consumer sales comes from completely different markets than most of us serve. It is a low priced but high margin, high volume market. This revenue can be used to cross-subsidize the online services to lower prices and stress individual photographers to the breaking point. This is how the large agencies were convinced to cave in.
If this scenario actually happens they will target the most profitable clients that can most easily be served. Those who do not wish to work for them will be left with the crumbs of the marketplace. This is a phenomenon called "marketplace foreclosure." It is what has happened to beef, dairy and poultry farmers. They essentially have no avenue to the marketplace for their products except through the giant agri-corporations.
This may seem to many as completely impossible because nothing like it has ever happened to our industry before. That is because image production is an inherently low profit endeavor. Before digital technology the profitability of our industry was to low to make it worth attacking. The profit lies in digital distribution. That is why C&G keep us outside their operation as "vendors", that's how their contract describes photographers. They are only interested in controlling the means of distribution because that is where the profit is.
Additionally, the other components of our industry are consolidating and going global. Large global players would rather deal with a global entity than thousands of individual vendors.
I apologize for upsetting anyone. This is only a possibility but there is much widely accepted and used business principle to support it.
In light of this possibility one should continue to invest in digital photo technology not with an eye toward enhanceing prosperity over the long run but toward the pure enjoyment of photography while preparing to generate one's living in some other way. Employment by C or G is unlikely to pay sufficiently to warrant the investment. If it did it would be cheaper for them to integrate us into their operations.
Ken Kasper
From: "Tara Marlowe", taramarlowe@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2001, 5:15 PM
RE: [colortheory] A Call to Arms [Dan's response cont'd.]
A freelancer I know was asked by his client "How long dod it take you to do that?" He told the guy "It took me 20 years to do that."Providing quality work requires time, equipment and training. Not to mention talent. Nobody can do it well if they aren't charging for it.
I am alarmed by what I'm hearing about photographers not charging for retouching. And my experieince is that they often underestimate the depth of photoshop, both in terms of it's significance for photography and the skill involved. My feeling is that something needs to be done to educate photographers *right away* on both of those points. I feel that if the trend is for photographers to provide the retouching as part of their work and if they don't build it into their business as a profit center it will become transparent to the client. Clients will expect to get it for free as part of the job. The quality of the work will suffer and lots of people will go out of business. They need to know that it is a real service and that there is a significant equipment and training investment involved. And that doesn't even include *talent*, which is required as well.
The Macintosh destroys and rebuilds every industry it touches. It's happening now with photography. The boundaries between professions get blurred and roles have to be redefined. Workflows get turned upside down. People need to realize that just because one machine can do everything doesn't mean that one person can. In fact, it's not the *machine* that's doing the work.
Photographers need to learn from what has happened in the last 10 years with layouts and prepress. The rates for freelance work has steadily dereased while the level of knoweldge required has increased dramatically. Now all of sudden everybodys a retoucher, or everybodys a photographer. The quality of the work suffers as more people decide to become retouchers overnight and don't build in the cost of providing quality. It's usually cheaper to do something once the right way than hire a hack and have it redone rush.
Perhaps some Survival Seminars through the professional organizations could address some of that. The three issues that I think need to be addressed to prevent the ghetto-fication of retouching:
1) how much time and money is required to provide professional quality retouching. Offer suggestions for retouching, workflow and pricing and educating the client
2) and instilling a respect for the craft by informing photographers of how significant photoshop can be for their images by demonstrating a range of types of imaging work (I can provide these.)
3) and include some kind of Color Management By Crayons overview. Not so much to explain in technical detail but to define it. (Most of us are still confused by this aspect and the lectures I have been to have only helped slightly because they start in the middle.)
I'm curious to see what the response will be to this e-mail. We can either do something about this now or let the market sort itself out like it always does in the end.
Tara Marlowe
DIG IT AL, Inc.
New York City
917-301-2489
From: Dan Margulis, 76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001, 11:08 AM
RE: [colortheory] Re: Dan's Response
Folks,I received the following comments privately from the president of Megavision, a major supplier of high-end digital cameras. Because I thought it would be of interest, after replying I asked permission to post it to the list. He agreed, and you can read our brief exchange at the bottom of his initial reply.
Dan Margulis
--------------- Forwarded Message ---------------
Subj: a few comments
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:20:35 PM
From: ken@mega-vision.com
To: DMargulis@aol.comHello Dan,
Tim Palmer forwarded your message to the colortheory group, which I read with considerable interest. It makes some very salient and convincing points, and alludes to, but sort of dodges around, a soap box of mine which got all soaped up upon reading. Soooo..:
One of the difficult yet important things in life is to assign value. What is this worth? How valuable is that? When we produce a product, we sell it for some amount, and the value of the product is related in some arcane fashion to the price we sell it for. When we try to explain to the buyer what the value is, (so they will pay the price we want), we start to break down the value and assign value to different parts of the product..."This image is worth a lot because I shot it on a really good camera, it is printed on really nice paper, I used really good film, I scanned it on a really good scanner, I processed it on a really souped-up MAC G-umpteen whatever..blah..blah..blah"
Those few who charge a whole lot for a picture do the same thing, but when they assign value their list is very short: "This image is worth a lot because it's mine."
This calls to mind question, a lesson, and a moral.
The Question: "Where is the value in the product that I produce?"
The Lesson: If my product is a picture, to the extent that the value of the product is in the technology of image production and reproduction, to that extent value is enhanced or diminished by mastry and application of technology. If I place a lot of value in the production and reproduction of the picture, I had better know how to work the widgets that help make the picture. If I place a lot of value on what happens in my eye and in my mind, the value my picture is not affected as much by the widgets used to produce it (such as film, CCD, CMOS, MAC's, Scanners, etc).
A photographer who sees great value in ability to skillfully manipulate technology is dependent on mastering technology to realize value. A photographer who sees great value in creative vision is less affected by technology, for the technology is but the tool to help articulate the vision. "The Value is the Vision". Of course, the vision must be articulated to be appreciated (as well as to be sold). Technology and the mastry thereof is what helps articulate and realize the vision.
If lots of my value depends on an expensive and difficult technology that becomes cheap and easy (Remember Linotype operators and Scanner operators?) then my value is threatened. If lots of my value is in my ability to make a baby smile, a capture dark mood, compose a lovely set, then it matters less how much the camera costs or how easy it is to operate. I only use an expensive complex thing because I need it to realize my vision.
Masters of vision, whose value is the vision, are at the mercy of the technology that is here, for they need it to realize their vision. Masters of technology, who place considerable value in that mastery, are at the mercy of the technogy that will come and must always be alert to changing technology to avoid obsolescense.
Misplaced value has been a particularly big problem for photographers as the digital age leaps upon them. They thought their value was in the film, so when film threatened to go away, so also, they thought, would go their value. But the value was never in the film. The value was in the image realized on the film. Now they think their value is in an expensive and complex digital camera, and that their value will disappear if (or maybe when) the camera is replaced by a cheap and easy camera. It's not and it won't. The value is still where it always has been---in the image that is made USING the camera.
The Moral: Make sure you know where your value is.
Regards,
Ken Boydston
President, MegaVision, Inc.--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken Boydston, ken@mega-vision.com
To: Dan Margulis, 76270,1033
Cc: filmless@mindspring.com
rchang@mega-vision.com
Date: Fri, Feb 2, 2001, 10:26 PM
Hi Dan,Your conclusion may well indeed be right. Photographers may not like it, but neither did I like it when computers got so cheap during the late 80's that the image processing computers we built went the way of geranium whisker radios. Embracing change and adapting can lead to new expressions of vision, which in turn can lead to a new and fresh vision. Had MegaVision not been forced from a moribund technology, we might never have had the honor of providing tools to creative professionals, and I might never have had the great pleasure of looking at an incredible picture and taking pride in the very small part we played in its creation.
Thanks for writing. If you think the folks on your list would want to read such pontification, by all means, let them.
Regards,
Ken
At 08:19 PM 2/1/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Thanks for your kind comments. I agree with everything you say but believe
>that you left out the logical conclusion, which is,
>
>The value of what the photographer produces has always been the captured
>image, regardless of those who thought that it somehow was the film or the
>technology. Unfortunately, certain changes in the marketplace have caused
>the essential value of the captured image to go down. However, the same
>forces have caused the value of being able to manipulate that image for
>best results in a variety of scenarios to go up. The intelligent
>practitioner will make adjustments in his own business to compensate.
>
>Because of the thought-provoking nature of what you wrote and because of
>who you are, I was going to forward it to the colortheory list, but it wasn't
>clear that you intended this. So, if you wish me to do so, let me know,
>otherwise it's just between us.
>
>Thanks again for taking the time to write.
>
>Dan Margulis
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.
Receive Schedule
and Pricing updates.
If you let us know how to contact you, we will enter you into our monthly drawing for a free 2-day class (A $895 value).
- Get free video training
- Get free tips, tricks and shortcuts
- Get special sale pricing and free seminar invitations
Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc. 4100 Perimeter Park South Atlanta, GA 30341
work sales@ledet.com work administration@ledet.com work webmaster@ledet.com
P work 770.414.5007 P work 877.819.2665 F fax 312.896.9094
- Authorized Training Provider
Copyright 2012. Sterling Ledet & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
Design by Digital Scientists, a Conversion Optimization Company.
