| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2010 02:10:57 PM · #1 |
I just ran into this article thanks to a post in another forum I read. Surprised I didn't see it here (maybe I missed it). It's an interesting read.
For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path
|
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:09:18 PM · #2 |
Very very very interesting!
A lot running through my mind, but can't really seem to put it down. Raises some questions like "What if you're a photographer starting out" It's nice to get a portfolio of reputable clients so you can get higher paying jobs in the future, but that means doing the first few clients for low or no pay. The amount of photographers doing this (really high with today's cheap digital technology) is what's hurting the industry for pro photographers. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:10:45 PM · #3 |
| The thought that came to my mind, and it may not be fair, is that you can lament what used to be, or you can adapt and make do with what is. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:15:25 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The thought that came to my mind, and it may not be fair, is that you can lament what used to be, or you can adapt and make do with what is. |
For example - some photographers doing very well in microstocks? |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:19:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The thought that came to my mind, and it may not be fair, is that you can lament what used to be, or you can adapt and make do with what is. |
There is no adaptation. The industry is flooded with people doing things for free...or cheaply and it's impossible for some people to compete. Where there was once 200 Wedding Photographers in a given area now there are 2000. Some good some bad....some horrific and all doing it for less regardless of quality. So, adapting means finding something else to do for a living because day by day thousands and thousands of people are entering this market for whatever it's worth. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:29:13 PM · #6 |
It is rather sad. The demand for images is going down and because of digital photography the number of people to create those images is going up.
The pie is getting smaller and more people want a slice...
I think the direction that people will go is photography coupled with something else. (Now if I could only figure out what the something else is so I can quit my day job!)
eta: Perhaps the something else can still be photography related? A number of pros in and around my area are doing workshops and classes for example.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 15:35:51. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:29:50 PM · #7 |
| When you're making milk... the cream will always rise to the top! |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:35:54 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
When you're making milk... the cream will always rise to the top! |
I was just published in New York Magazine and they used to have 4-6 people shooting food all over the city, close to full time (or they were kept pretty busy). Now they're down to two. The New York Times has cut it's staff so many times they're even down to a bare bones skeleton crew. Cream or talent has nothing to do with anything anymore because there almost is no more top to speak of.
There is a narrowing beltway of people still earning big money but that's in advertising and that too is shrinking.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 15:38:55. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:38:47 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by karmat:
The thought that came to my mind, and it may not be fair, is that you can lament what used to be, or you can adapt and make do with what is. |
There is no adaptation. The industry is flooded with people doing things for free...or cheaply and it's impossible for some people to compete. Where there was once 200 Wedding Photographers in a given area now there are 2000. Some good some bad....some horrific and all doing it for less regardless of quality. So, adapting means finding something else to do for a living because day by day thousands and thousands of people are entering this market for whatever it's worth. |
ways to adapt -- offer something the others don't -- (and be creative). at the very minimum, make sure you are better than them (honestly, of the "200" in the given area, how many of them were good?). And, like Citadel mentioned, find something to double it with.
In my area, there are 4 or 5 of us who shoot primarily sports (VERY small community). 4 years ago, there were 2 -- myself and another guy. Our paths never crossed. Now, though, at any given sporting event, there is a good chance that I'm not the only one there. Therefore, I have to keep working to make sure my skills are growing and I stay "in front of" my competition. The "other guy" hasn't done this and as a result, he is known as the pricey professional with the bad pics.
To use your example of the wedding photographers -- in 1997, when I got married, there were basically two or three to choose from. They were okay -- pricey, and okay quality. Now, however, without "looking" I could name you no less than 10 photogs of various "degrees" (some amateurs all the way up to rank professional) who can shoot your wedding and do a great job. The worst amateur in the group is better than any of the three 13 years ago. So is it the amateur's fault that the pro can't make it? |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 03:51:12 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The "other guy" hasn't done this and as a result, he is known as the pricey professional with the bad pics.
|
Well, I'm not talking about hackers that have been doing this for years like your "pricey guy with bad pics" I AM talking about talented creative people, that kick ass that are equal to the best of the best but couldn't dream of carving out a place because of the ever flooding market. There simply isn't a living out there anymore and that's pretty much a fact.
I think your wedding thing makes that point. Now, people are choosing their friends cousins with DSLR's to shoot their events, and yes there are talented amateurs getting into the market, weekend warriors...and total bozos. Even if you are very good an creative it's almost impossible to make a serious living at this these days. BTW your idea of serious and mine might be different.
I would also add that it's all fair and good. It's the nature of things but I'd bet half the people on this site alone have chipped a few dollars out of this industry and the share of work is simply being divided more and more each day and that will never change.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 17:06:15. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 04:28:33 PM · #11 |
This seems like it's a very common thread throughout history as technology improves. And change happens faster as technology improves faster.
A big one the comes to mind for me is "The US Postal service will not survive free email." But they are still going strong (maybe not as strong, but they are still delivering a lot of mail). One of humanities best traits is the ability to constantly adapt. Those lacking the ability will not survive the changes. But those creative enough will come through it, and maybe even prosper in ways they never thought possible.
HAve to remember that there is always another way of looking at these "doom and gloom" stories. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 04:37:28 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
This seems like it's a very common thread throughout history as technology improves. And change happens faster as technology improves faster.
A big one the comes to mind for me is "The US Postal service will not survive free email." But they are still going strong (maybe not as strong, but they are still delivering a lot of mail). One of humanities best traits is the ability to constantly adapt. Those lacking the ability will not survive the changes. But those creative enough will come through it, and maybe even prosper in ways they never thought possible.
HAve to remember that there is always another way of looking at these "doom and gloom" stories. |
Yep, technology moves on, photography was once the domain of the few. Now, it is accessible to all and people are cashing in on it. I recall when I started working on the farm, we had twenty five staff. Three years later, there were six of us, newer bigger tractors did the job of three, equipment was bigger and more efficient. Milking parlour were more automated. There were a lot of unemployed farmworkers looking for a career change. So it is with the 'Pro' photographers, the myths have been dispelled and the magick is now available to anyone who wants to buy a digital camera. I don't blame anyone who is planning a wedding and asks friends with cameras to take their wedding day shots. When a complete beginner can produce good quality photos at little or no cost, why pay thousands to some 'Pro' who professes to be better able to capture the same quality photos?? |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 05:09:15 PM · #13 |
the biggest problem i've seen is the dumbing down on the client side, with purchasing decisions being made by people who don't know what to look for. they think, 'oh, anybody with a camera can do this.' sometimes, they're right, a lot of times, though, they're wrong.
it's one thing when you're talking about stock photography: the photo has already been taken. who cares who took it or how they took it? it either meets the need or it doesn't.
on the other hand, when you're talking about photography services, this is where everything goes to hell. you have people that own cameras that take technically proficient pictures and you have people thinking all they need is a technically proficient picture. it's only when it's too late that they find out they needed someone with more equipment, that actually knew how to use the equipment, that understood composition, that had the people and business skills to work with art directors, marketing directors, decision makers, that have the skills to turn images around immediately, and so on and so on.
there's a LOT more to the business than taking photos, but unfortunately the people that know how to do it right have mostly likely forgotten how to sell themselves and their services. and they're losing business to people who really have no business taking money. not because they shouldn't be allowed to 'get started somewhere', but because they can't deliver the full package. it fries me no end to hear people say they're charging $50, $75, $100, $150 an hour just because that's what the market will bear...it fries me because most of these people haven't done their homework to figure out what the business is really about.
wow, didn't see that coming ;-) |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 05:15:48 PM · #14 |
The US Mail comparison is an odd one because while they stood to get devastated on one end it was unthinkable that that on the flip side, a by product of the same technology that was burying them, would provide a base for increased revenues in internet sales/deliveries. Really rare that such a thing happens and they were lucky that one end of their business was replaced by a completely different booming market. Do you see something similar happening in the Photo Industry?
Keep in mind the article was speaking of a "Shrinking Path" and it does hold true.
But to the "why pay thousands to some 'Pro' who professes to be better able to capture the same quality photos??" point...
That is a problem because the same quality isn't always the case and in fact sometimes poor or lesser quality becomes the standard...kinda like the average youtube videos. On the flip side there are millions of talented people getting buried in the noise...so, in terms of making a living, who knows what they will be able to squeeze out of the industry.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 18:24:13. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 05:23:32 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Skip:
the biggest problem i've seen is the dumbing down on the client side, with purchasing decisions being made by people who don't know what to look for. they think, 'oh, anybody with a camera can do this.' sometimes, they're right, a lot of times, though, they're wrong.
it's one thing when you're talking about stock photography: the photo has already been taken. who cares who took it or how they took it? it either meets the need or it doesn't.
on the other hand, when you're talking about photography services, this is where everything goes to hell. you have people that own cameras that take technically proficient pictures and you have people thinking all they need is a technically proficient picture. it's only when it's too late that they find out they needed someone with more equipment, that actually knew how to use the equipment, that understood composition, that had the people and business skills to work with art directors, marketing directors, decision makers, that have the skills to turn images around immediately, and so on and so on.
there's a LOT more to the business than taking photos, but unfortunately the people that know how to do it right have mostly likely forgotten how to sell themselves and their services. and they're losing business to people who really have no business taking money. not because they shouldn't be allowed to 'get started somewhere', but because they can't deliver the full package. it fries me no end to hear people say they're charging $50, $75, $100, $150 an hour just because that's what the market will bear...it fries me because most of these people haven't done their homework to figure out what the business is really about.
wow, didn't see that coming ;-) |
This^^
I have had several people ask me to shoot their weddings just because I have a camera with changeable lenses and my shots are better then theirs. But, for one, I don't want to shoot weddings but more importantly I did not have the skills or equipment (at the time all I had was a Rebel XS with the kit lens) to properly do the job. Since then I have been practicing, practicing, practicing as well as reading all I can on the business of photography as well as techniques. I am getting to the point where I am about ready to start a real business and I will have to compete with people who are at now where I was a couple years ago but they want to make a quick buck. I do feel as long as I continue to strive and become better day after day and really put my quality steps ahead of other photographers I will be alright even if my price is much higher then the person with their entry level dslr and kit lens that they just purchased. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 05:48:57 PM · #16 |
I honestly think it is a bunch of bunk. There is still a market for quality photography. Yes, there is *much* greater market access, and in certain areas like stock photography the marketplace has changed drastically. That doesn't mean that one cannot make a living, just that one needs to be very adaptable to do so. Not unlike any other industry. While it's true for instance that low-buck wedding photogs are running rampant, there are plenty of couples that demand proven quality and/or a certain look and are willing to pay for it.
As an engineer in the electronics industry, I've watched as globalization has literally decimated US electronics manufacturing. Why? Three words... cost, cost, cost. While I can complain all day about the short-sightedness of many (not all) off-shoring efforts, and the loss of US technical jobs, it will do no good. If I am to remain gainfully employed I *must* adapt. BTW, I *have* been laid off twice in the last decade.
The lesson in all this is that we cannot get "too close to the problem." We need to step back and see our industry as others see it, understand what is driving change and proactively adapt to meet the change, not try to react after the fact. That is often too late. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 06:27:09 PM · #17 |
Market forces will dictate that the average price a photographer can charge is doomed to go down. It's a fact of life. In my eyes there are a few things that make this inevitable:
Equipment prices are no longer prohibitive. A skilled photographer can likely get the same quality out of $5,000 in equipment as would have cost $10,000 or more before. Canon and Nikon flagship models can rival medium format. This means photography is losing the ability to charge a premium because needed equipment is beyond the reach of the average entrepreneur (think auto repair, which, if anything, requires ever more specialized tools as cars become more and more electronic).
The pool of photographers. As mentioned in many posts above, there are just more and more. And it doesn't matter that there is likely a churn of people, they still all count. Let's say the bottom 50% only stay in the business for 6-12 months because they finally run into the client that in unhappy and raises hell for their subpar work. That person leaves but is quickly replaced by someone else willing to give it a try. The top 50% may stay relatively stable, but they have to deal with this everchanging bottom 50% and the prices they are willing to offer.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2010 06:36:43 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I honestly think it is a bunch of bunk. |
What's the "bunk"? Are you saying that the industry has not been divided into by an amateur population of shooters (good, bad or indifferent)...or thousands of fast rising new comers?
I'd bet 15 years ago there were about 200 Headshot Photographers probably doing 80-90% of the high quality work in New York. Now there are thousands but lets just say 1000 for the sake of ease. So, that's 800 new comers and probably 200 or more of them are easily as good or maybe better than the old timers. That's fine but I'd bet 80-90% has been chopped up and with a few exceptions all the rates have gone down...a lot. It's NOT an issue of quality it's just that millions of more people have access to the same technology and the ability to develop the same exact skills sets in a relatively short period of time. That's simply a fact and NOT a bad thing but not "bunk" either.
Anyway, that's all the NY Times article was saying with the one caveat that all the new entrants into the industry CAN NOT deliver consistently...which is something that does come with years of experience and that is one thing that still holds a high value to some buyers.
Eta: To Skips point, I think it's freaky and interesting that the winner of the Blue In Product Shot II has some incredibly, wicked bad lighting issues (like off the charts) and that didn't matter to the voters what so ever. If that's not indicative of something, relative to this discussion, I'll be damned.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 18:47:07. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 07:05:31 PM · #19 |
It's bunk in that the proposition is that the marketplace for professional photography is supposedly shrinking, eaten from the bottom by amateurs who are willing to accept peanuts for their work.
While I recognize that the ease of entry has resulted in some areas of photography being inundated with amateur work, my point is this: if you think of yourself as, to use  pawdrix's example, a headshot photographer, and cannot see yourself as anything else, then you may have a problem. If you can leverage your skills to provide things that others cannot, if you can use the tools the amateurs are using (namely, the web) to *your* advantage as well or better than they can, if you can take your skills and apply them to new markets, then you will continue to find success.
Let's look at PJ (newspaper, magazine) photography as an example. If you are in that field, working day to day to put food on the table, you perceive the article as being deadly accurate. But step back from the problem. Print media have been on a downward spiral for years, one that they probably will not recover from. The days of printed newspapers are numbered. Magazines are having a tough go too, and though they will probably survive for some time, they will eventually be relegated to a very small niche. Perceiving this, how can one work in that field without asking ones self, "what can I do to broaden my market such that this trend does not mean the end of my career?" The key is being able to step back and look at your situation from an "external" viewpoint.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 19:06:33. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 07:49:57 PM · #20 |
| Careers in the arts have always been risky, be it a musician, a dancer, an artist, or a photographer. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 07:55:13 PM · #21 |
This discussion reminds me of the irony of listening to a friend who is sitting in his lazyboy with tv remote in one hand and his laptop and cell phone on his lap and after he claps his hands to turn the light on, starts complaining that he can't believe how he was laid off from the assembly plant and replaced by a machine. ( at least as it relates to advancing technology's role in taking food off people's table. )
This situation is no different in other service industries. Web development has been inundated with competition from GiantCorp's $5 website to a client's nephew with a laptop and FrontPage. It makes it harder to compete and causes prices to go down, but that is the nature of the free market and because I am often on the consuming end of that market, I can't really complain. Just need to work harder to differentiate yourself. If there is anything to be "done" about it, it seems the best effort would be in educating consumers as to why and what the differences are between a $50 wedding photographer and a $2500 one.
Two cents from a free market capitalist victim / beneficiary. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 08:07:30 PM · #22 |
Fritz - I assume you are making the assumption that the photographers that are getting chewed into are one trick ponies and doing only one type of Photography but I know at least 5 guys and gals that do many things very well and have seen their potential incomes shrink from all angles...and it's not because they lack drive, talent or creativity. It's kind of a "let them eat cake" point of view but I'm saying there aren't that many places to turn and you might not realize it but dividng your time and energy into different markets is hard to juggle and you thin out.
As for me I like and have made money doing Headshots, Food, Reportage, Portraiture and even a few architecture jobs (which I hate and suck at) and few other things but believe me splitting your energy trying to find work, spread out over that many genres is hard and you get fragmented. You become a pinball ineffectively scrambling to do it all. More to the point everyone of the things that I do has been shredded by the economy, the flood of photographers, dying industry (Print Media)etc. So, there's not many places to find cover if you're a pro at any level. The point is that even people that are good at shooting many things which not many people really are (I mean, at a high high level) it's so much harder than you think and I know anyone who is ACTUALLY of the front lines with both feet in the game(not me btw) will back what I'm saying.
Message edited by author 2010-03-30 20:17:26. |
|
|
|
03/30/2010 08:41:03 PM · #23 |
Steve, I do hear what you are saying, and I know that you have direct experience. There is a shake-out underway, no doubt about it, just as there has been in my profession. Those still in the game constantly question whether they will be in the game in two years... in five. I know I do. I'm looking at broadening my skill set as opposed to increasing depth in one area. In order to broaden effectively I need to look at areas where my basic skills will readily apply, then figure out what I lack to be a class-leader and learn it. So the bottom line is, in five years I am unlikely to be working in electronics, perhaps not even in engineering... but I will be working, and I can practically guarantee that I will increase my income.
On the flip side, I could pretty much ensure work in electronics until retirement in certain geographical areas. But moving is one thing I will not consider because of the impact on family. So I need to choose other options. |
|
