I am a professional photographer. I'd like to share some uncomfortable truths about photography.

matt314159 · 3 months

OP, you've made me thankful I just shoot for shits and giggles...because I enjoy it, and for no other reason. I think I'll keep it that way. I think you've articulated (and quite well, at that) some of the frustration a lot of people in your industry are feeling right now. I don't mean it pejoratively but someone already likened it to the MPAA reacting to the disruptive technology of the internet (and before that, the VCR). Yes, low-cost, high quality gear will change things in a dynamic way. But I don't think it will be all bad, nor will it render you irrelevant. I also don't think you can achieve true mastery in your profession, in a few months. The technical aspect of capturing light properly, sure, but how to "be" a photographer has to take more time than that. But all the hand-wringing in the world won't fix anything. I'll quit while I'm behind and just say, 'don't give up'...unless it's just a paycheck to you. If it's more than that, then fight for it.

yamancool63 · 3 months

You certainly laid that one down on the table. I applaud your brutal honesty. It's really disheartening to see this trend of the "Facebook wedding album," as you describe it, because just think of the experience that they could have had with a true professional.

Nobody cares about recording history. Nobody cares about documenting the events of our time for the future.

Precisely.

May many more shutter actuations come your way.

guiscard · 3 months

I work as a professional (realist) painter. A couple of centuries ago we had all the gigs. Rich people would take us on trips to do watercolor 'postcards' to send to their friends. We did the wedding and family portraits, we made images of current events (usually battle scenes). Book images, advertising, you name it, if you needed an image you went to a professional artist.

Then photographers came along with their magic boxes and took all our jobs. We hold out in the 'fine art on the wall market', but that's pretty much it. Even our museum walls are being encroached on these days by photographers.

Technology can be a bitch.

army_shooter · 3 months

I agree.

I saw a picture in National Geographic recently that without a doubt had the sky layered in - the edge of a mountain meeting the sky was so poorly done that it was the first thing I noticed when I flipped the page. If I could find it on their site I'd link it. I thought such things were a no-no for National Geographic?

I don't think a throw-away was needed.

ETA, the pic in question, Harmonic Convergence

homeworld · 3 months

Photography is easier than we'd like to admit.

As a videographer that frequently does weddings, I never understood the price discrepancy people are willing to pay for video vs photos. People will pay $5,000 for their photos, and then act like $1,500 for a video that requires me to hire a 2nd cameraman, spend 12 hours running around shooting, and a good 25 hours to edit is too expensive

prbphoto · 3 months

You shoot what the clients want. More and more, you won't like what the clients want.

Holy shit, that's correct!

That's honestly one of the more truthful dissertations on professional photography that I have read. I read all too many books that attempt to turn photography into this incredibly difficult art form, and for art photographers, it is but only from the creativity standpoint. For documentary people, you really could learn 90% of what you need to know in a few months.

My only difference is that you can't learn everything in a few months. That last 10%, the lighting, posing, the finesse of great photography takes far longer than most people think. Unfortunately, like you said, people just don't care about that as much.

seedywonder · 3 months

Amateur photographer here who manages some decent-to-good photographs every now and then but doesn't have the training or skill or patience or masochism or taste for noodle ramen to go pro.

Thanks for your post. Seriously.

(1) Yeah. My first DSLR was a 350D. I love(d) that camera, but when I got the 5DMkII and some good lenses I was just blown away by the difference. I can't compose a picture to save my life, but this thing's made it so much more fun.

I've seen amazing things done by people with old film cameras, but that's because they were shooting the kinds of pictures that an old film camera is good at - street photography, art portraits, etc. If you can find someone to pay for it, wonderful. If not, too bad, enjoy it for yourself.

(2) This is news? I really wish more photographers got more better gooder with IT stuff. Not just how to reliably back up your shit but things like how you can fake, well, anything. I work partially in IT security and digital investigation. Nothing's sacred or safe unless you have a cryptographic checksum of a RAW file that you saw in its original form when the checksum was taken.

(3) Same with anything. There will always be people who do awesome artistically good art. These may be the ones who can afford to do it as a hobby, the ones who don't mind being poor, or the lucky few who're able to make money off it. It sucks if you're none of those, but it won't mean the death of quality.

(4) You never stop learning. Photography's awesome because you can pick up the basics quickly, but a lot of it's instinct, luck, experience, you name it. I wouldn't sweat it so much, but you can't be complacent.

(5) I think "you" will. There'll always be a market for high quality stuff done by people who know what they're doing. It may be a lot smaller than many pro photographers wish it were.

chakalakasp · 3 months

PART 1

I really enjoy reading reddit sometimes, and this is one of them. Every now and then we get a really good discussion going.

I'm a pro photographer too, and I have some thoughts to go along with yours.

It's more about equipment than we'd like to admit.

This is true and it is not. Yes, yes, I know, a cop-out -- let me explain. It is certainly true that with better lenses and a more capable camera you will be able to crank out much better work than others -- but able is the key word here. I have met plenty of people who bought themselves cameras that made me jealous who produced work that nobody would want, and I know a guy who cranked out photos with a point and shoot Sony camera 8 years ago that are still being used by advertisers, on book covers, and have probably been forwarded to you in the email by your elderly grandparents. Whether it's raw talent or experience, the camera operator matters a lot. I've seen this even apply to myself; I have photos I took with a disposable camera and with a 1948 Kodak folder that I've actually RM licensed to advertisers. Most of the stuff I shot when I was starting photography was on a (for the time) high end EOS-3 with nice lenses, and a lot of that stuff was crap. I know people who don't call themselves photographers and who shoot with an iPhone and create images that blow my mind. With photography, I really do believe talent is the biggest factor.

That said, when it comes to business, if you want the extremely unenviable and underpaid job of being a photojournalist, then yes, equipment will help your portfolio big-time. You are correct that shooting, say, college football without the big glass is going to result in a less than stellar portfolio. There are some specialties, such as wildlife and sports, where only certain kinds of (very expensive) equipment will do the job, and anything less means poor work,. Similarly, it's hard to land a commission job for high-end advertorial if you don't have anything in your portfolio that shows off expensive lighting or good post work. Equipment does matter. But I really don't think it's the largest factor.

People are doing some unethical shit with RAW and nobody really understands or cares. Photoshopping the hell out of photos is a nono in photojournalism, we all know this. And yet I see portfolios and award compilations come to our desk with heavy artificial vignetting, damn-near HDR exposure masking and contrasts with blacks so deep you could hide a body inside them. When I question anybody about this they say "oh yeah, well I didn't do anything in CS5, just the raw editor in Lightroom real quick so it's okay, it's not destructive editing, the original is still there."

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, for in addition to being a pro photographer I used to be the digital pre-press color correction guy for a metro newspaper. I think the fellows at Poynter (who came to give us occasional pep talks) have their heart in the right place but get their knickers in a bunch over some odd things. The typical photojournalism approach to image sanctity is far too concerned with rules and far too unconcerned with principles. Many types of "unrealisms" are accepted while others are not. Silhouettes are something that people rarely perceive with their eyes and brains, for example, and most photos of silhouettes that you see were shot in conditions where if you were actually standing there you would not have perceived a silhouette. But for years it was a limitation of the equipment and unavoidable at times (and pretty at others), so it was allowed. Now you have cameras with much better dynamic range and you find people rendering scenes in a way that were previously impossible and these scenes are declared "unreal". They're not unreal, they're more closely matching real perception (which is a bunny that will never be caught -- all photographs lie, and have to by their very medium), but because we are not used to how they look, we label them as being unreal. Similarly, long exposure, an accepted technique in photojournalism, creates scenes that temporally did not exist in one moment (and did not look that way to the viewer). We're totally cool with that, but if someone uses several photos of the same scene (taken in temporally much shorter an amount of time than a typical long exposure shot) to expand the dynamic range of the shot to something close to what our eyes see, that's a no-no. Or, for example, we are totally okay with using 400mm lenses even though our eyes do no perceive the world in any way shape or form like a 400mm lens does. And of course there is flash -- and artificial light source (the photographer is affecting the scene!) that is in no way like the light that actually existed at the scene and existed temporally for such a brief period of time that nobody present noticed it. But hey, for years low-light photography wasn't possible with film, so I guess flashes are okay still. There is also (IMO) an irony that most papers will be okay with you doing things "analogous to a darkroom", since that's a standard they all understand. But there are direct analogies in most of the things in Photoshop to what you can do in the darkroom, so this standard doesn't really mean anything. Localized curve adjustments aren't much different than dodge and burn and I can make any photo look like almost anything using localized curve adjustments.

But all of this is moot, really, since I can assure you that the digital pre-press guys in the dark room with the big CRTs that you hand off your photos to (and whom, it seems, all photojournalists just assume do some kind of magic and try never to think about) are going to hammer the everloving HELL out of your images in Photoshop to try to get them to look halfway decent in on crap-ass newprint. You would probably be APPALLED to learn the liberties the pre-press guys take with your photos to get the colors to look right, but if this step isn't done, your photos will look like buttprints on buttpaper.

But it doesn't seem like anybody cares. Some of the shit on the wire services looks exactly the same so they got jobs somewhere. That dude that got canned from The Blade for photoshopping basketballs where there were none? He's found redemption- I remember reading an article where some editor says "oh he sends us the raw files so we know its kosher now."

Not sure what's wrong with this -- getting the RAW files IS a good way to see what's been done to an image. Either that, or use the National Geographic standard of sending a TIFF file with all the adjustment layers intact. If I send you a RAW file, not only can you see what I've done to a photo but you can revert it with the click of a button and do whatever the hell you want to do to it. RAW files are definitely one way to verify that shooters aren't doing anything to a photo you don't want them to do.

F*cking storm chasers are the worst offenders at this shit. Guess what he does now.

This is the post that keeps on giving -- I'm a storm chasing photographer, too! I never realized Allan was the Toledo Blade guy.

Storm chasers in general do tend to do a lot of post processing work to their images. I try to do less than most. (Sadly, some of the original images have expired off of the image host, but I have an example of what I typically do here: http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?9066-Extreme-Photoshopping&p=107289&viewfull=1#post107289 ). That said, my general audience is not editorial but rather creative clients (they pay a lot better!), and in my agencies I don't claim that my shots are photojournalistic, though frankly the great majority of them I'd be comfortable submitting to a newspaper to go with a story about weather. My philosophy on the processing of storm photos is to try to give an impression of what it was like to be there. This means (if possible) not having the ground be a complete shadow, not having the sky be blown out, and not having clouds that were really damn dark render as a washed-out grey.

The chasers out there tend to be very good at self policing. Years ago, there was some jackalope submitting fake tornado video to the AP (he'd take old tornado video he shot, flip it horizontally, and then submit it as recent video he shot of a tornado that was in the news). A couple of chasers recognized one of his flipped shots from a storm they'd seen years prior and started a huge thread about it. I got them in touch with the AP National newsdesk, and the guy's work was retracted (and presumably he's blackballed from the AP).

There are probably only 5 or 6 really, really good storm photographers in the world. It's a great niche to shoot! It's quite a bit harder and often much more boring than you'd think, but it can be incredibly rewarding.

AAA0 · 3 months

Ever since I began professional work as a photographer, the one thing that bothered me more than anything else is that I'd have to sit back and accept that most of my work from that point on would be utter shit.

I say this because only a small portion of my clients come into the project with the "You're the artist...you make the decisions" attitude. Many clients know exactly what they want and can even send me shitty example photos for me to emulate.

One of my best shitty shoots was with a guy who makes men's shirts. He modeled the shirts himself and wanted the photos to look like he is in motion. He explained to me how he was going to achieve this and I told him it wouldn't look right. He assured me it was for the best so I began shooting. He alternately moved his arms back and forth as if he were a robot walking. He continued to do this for every item of clothing we photographed. In the end he absolutely loved the photos. I would personally be embarrassed to show them to any of my clients.

As for photography being easier than we'd like to admit, overall I think I would agree with this statement. I teach lessons and tell this to all of my students. It's just not THAT hard. A good photographer will have to deal with an immense rush of decisions in the moment before he takes the shot. A bad photography really only has one thing to worry about....PRETTY FLOWER snap ! The fundamentals of photography can absolutely be taught but to say somebody can reach the level of a talented professional within only a couple months is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

KirbyG · 3 months

Your point about wedding photography is interesting.

Saying "Those aren't good photos, but they are what people want" is kind of absurd, don't you think? When "good" is defined by the producer rather than the consumer it gets kind of meaningless.

We had a very expensive package of photos taken at our wedding by an award winning photographer. Several of our set were used in advertising by the photographer and he got recognition for a few of them.

We never look at 99.99% of them. There are a few that we love and have out on a regular basis, but now that you mention it I realize that they are all candid-type non-posed shots with loved ones.

We recommend that friends buy as small a photo package as possible, and we get agreement from other friends who have large dusty wedding albums. Friends who just had a buddy shoot some candids, or who asked people to take photos from the crowd, are just as happy (or happier) than we are with our award winning photo set.

This issue isn't about "people don't like 'good' wedding photos anymore", it's about "people have finally decided they don't want to pay for what YOU say they should like".

lilgreenrosetta · 3 months

Yep, all of that sounds about right. But these things mostly apply to the genres of photojournalism, sports and wedding photography. These are genres where capturing events is the most important thing. When budgets are slashed, some clients can afford to put quality in the back seat as long as the events are current and covered adequately for the intended audience. This is where the user-submitted photos show up and where hacks make their money.

In genres like fashion and advertising, things work a little differently. Budgets have shrunk here too, but they are still bigger than journalism budgets. More importantly, these genres are all about making a product look good. This requires an entirely different skill set and a different approach to photography. As someone who works in fashion, I'd like to argue that fashion and advertising photographers are less threatened by advances in technology or the proliferation of cheap digital cameras than their journalistic colleagues are.

1. It's more about equipment than we'd like to admit.

This is true for fashion to some extent. In many places a Phase One P30+ is the point of entry and $50.000 IQ180 systems are getting more and more common. But at the same time there are celebrated international photographers out there shooting work on a Canon G9 or Contax T2 - cameras that you can buy for well under $300 on eBay. Even if you want a 'serious' camera system you can buy a 5DmkII or D700 with two small primes for less than $2500. That's the sort of money even a student can scrape together with a summer job and a modicum of dedication. Once you put a portfolio together with that, you can start renting Phase One or Hasselblad systems for your more serious gigs. Equipment still matters in fashion, but I'd say the playing field is about as level as one could wish for.

2. People are doing some unethical shit with RAW and nobody really understands or cares.

The ethical side of this is of course a complete non-issue in fashion and advertising. But what is important is that you do have to have a really good handle on the postproduction side to make it in these industries. Not only do you have to be technically very well advanced in all the software, you also have to have the right taste in post and know which direction to take your photography in after you've shot it. I've seen many decent photographers let down by mediocre post. I've also seen exactly how much help successful photographers get from their postproduction artists.

3. Many times, sadly, it doesn't even matter if your photos are all that good or not.

In fashion, how good your photos are matters a LOT. But how good your photos are depends to a very large extent on the stylists, models, hair and make-up artists and locations you get to work with. And this in turn depends on your previous work and on who you know. It's certainly not true that an inexperienced photographer would do as well as a high-level pro if they were put in put in the same situation with the same models etc. But it is true that it is much harder for a beginner to make anything half decent when they don't have access to anyone good to work with, especially if they're aiming for the 'high-fashion' side of things.

Apart from that, the 'quality' of photos is sometimes hard to measure in fashion. It's all about style and attitude, so in some cases a grainy, out of focus snapshot can be just the ticket for a big-name fashion campaign. In any case, making 'good' fashion photographs is exceedingly difficult. You have to understand the business and know how to deliver what it wants to see. You also have to compete with millions of others for the same handful of jobs. If you're successful it can be a fantastic job, but getting there is about as hard as becoming a rock star.

4. Photography is easier than we'd like to admit.

I don't think this is true in fashion. Sure, every year there is a new 18 year old girl with a Digital Rebel who shoots blurry, blown out pictures of her pretty 18 year old girlfriends in the style of The Virgin Suicides with their tops off and gets noticed by a few magazines. But by and large, becoming a fashion photographer is difficult. It's hard to develop a recognizable style that sits well with brands and magazines. It's hard to find the right people to work with. It's hard to shoot something really good, and it's hard to get noticed in the sea of other contestants. There are a few overnight successes, but for most people it takes 5-10 years of very dedicated hard work to get anywhere at all.

5. We need to stop being goddamn snobs and accept the coming of The Golden Age

I don't know about other people, but I'm there. The fact that you can get a decent camera for under two grand is fantastic. All your post can be done on a $3k computer including the price of software. It is all fucking amazing.

But digital medium format is still expensive. So if you're in the part of the fashion business where sheer technical quality is an important distinguishing factor, owning an IQ180 will still give you an edge over the spotty up-and-comers. At least for a while.

loosh · 3 months

Professionals do take better pictures. It's just that most people don't notice the difference. I also think that photography seems easier than it is because of how popular it is. If a million amateurs take 10,000 photos a year, you're going to end up with some fantastic shots as a whole. Those are the ones you see on the forums/gallery sites.

TenzingNorgay · 3 months

Former commercial photog here (very briefly - I am all better now :). Comments:

Pro photography is to art what house painting is to the Mona Lisa. It is interesting, and frequently very necessary, work, but it's not about being "creative". it's about doing what the customer wants at a price they're willing to pay - just like any other profession. If you want to be creative, don't become any sort of professional artist. Do it as a hobby.
It's not about equipment and it never was. It's about marketing perception. In the film days, the photographer walking into a wedding with a MF camera - ANY MF camera ('Blad, Mamiya, etc.) was thought of as a "better" photographer than the one walking in with a 35mm. Why? Because: a) It was BIGGER and b) Anyone could buy a 35mm. A 35mm said, "I'm an amateur just like you". This had nothing to do with the reality of how well or poorly the equipment served the task, it was all about the customer perception.
If the kid with the D3 is beating you for work consistently, you're not all that good or there is a HUGE difference in equipment. Musicians have tried to make this argument for years - if I just had the right sound effect/pedal/amp/studio, I'd be a huge success. It's a crap argument. They're just making uninteresting music. The same applies here.
Quality is mostly less important than turnover. Digital is objectively less good than film (less dynamic range, more diffractive effects, etc.) but it doesn't matter. The difference isn't huge and it's getting smaller every year. The ability to turn around an image in nearly real time way overshadows the incremental benefits of film (but I still shoot film only because I like the quality and don't have to make a living doing so).
The quality of consumer cameras coupled with good editing tools is making photographers obsolete for many traditional professional niches like weddings, portraits, and the like. Couple that with the mall high volume photo "studios" and it's pretty much true that this kind of commercial work will vanish for almost anyone other than the aforementioned volume players.
PJs don't get paid for the picture. They get paid for getting to the picture. This won't change, but there never was a huge demand for PJs and there never will be.
Photo school is mostly as waste of money. Spend it on equipment, travel, and shooting. While there are things to be learned in school, there aren't enough of them to justify the insane price of tuition.
Ansel Adams' classic triology (The Camera, The Negative, The Print) are STILL relevant in the digital age. The specifics of how things get done are dated and oriented to film/paper, but the larger themes of exposure control, composition, and presentation are timeless. These books will teach you more about photography than 6 semesters of some self-anointed "art" school.
Read Orland's "Art And Fear". It's flatly the best book on the creative process I've ever seen.
In my case, I found out early that I loved photography but hated the business of photography. I found something else to do for a living that I love and that pays well. That has allowed me to be a serious photog doing what I love just for me, for over 40 years. I'm happy with my choice.

HillbillyHomeboy · 3 months

Nail on the head, bro. I'm a long-suffering copy editor and page designer for newspapers. The place I work for has ONE, 1, Uno full-time photographer. The pictures are taken with cheap digital cameras by the reporter or "reader submitted." The paper looks like total shit.

chakalakasp · 3 months

PART 2

Many times, sadly, it doesn't even matter if your photos are all that good or not.

Yup! It's surprising how little eye for quality a lot people have. Advertisers still do because they need every last advantage they can get, but editorial can no longer afford to pay for good, interesting images and so you get whatever the AP throws at you supplemented by your small PJ staff and whatever readers want to send in.

Here's something for you: I've been doing this for a long time. I am an excellent photographer. Give me an assignment and tell me what you want and I assure you, I'll come pretty fucking close to the picture you had inside your head. I am very, very good at what I do. You know what? You could learn everything I know in a few months. Maybe less if you really focus on it. That's it.

This is not true. I know it feels that way now, but when you started you likely sucked. If you did not, it's because you were blessed with an in-borne talent that most do not have. I have watched people try really, really hard and struggle for years at photography and hit a mediocre plateau. I've seen people who know nothing about photography pick up a camera and in months be cranking out work that I was envious of. This is NOT because photography is easy, it's because those people were geniuses. You might be one of those geniuses, but most people are not. The best most people can hope for is to spend years and years and years learning and practicing to get to a point where their work is good enough.

We need to stop being goddamn snobs and accept the coming of The Golden Age

Yes, yes, this! Though I think your earlier rants about post processing may be an indicator that you haven't really wrapped your arms around The Golden Age as hard as you think you have. Cameras are changing at a pace now that it's hard to tell where they will end up. Today's photography may not even be relevant in 20 years -- perhaps the world will have moved on to lightfield photography, or perhaps everything will be video (if paper dies and everything moves to e-ink or flexible LED, why stick with still images only?). But the fact that we have cameras today that can shoot decent images at 128,000 ISO on lenses with floating elements that eliminate 4 stops of shake using re-usable digital film that can hold thousands of photos at a time that can all be altered without chemicals and can be sent anywhere in the world in seconds... is magic. Embrace it!

Abe_Vigoda · 3 months

Technology and the ability to provide the home consumer with professional end results isn't always an industry killer.

Mostly, it's a fear of adapting to technology and learning to evolve once one hits that professional plateau.

A professional artist can talk shit about the digital medium, and they have a right to do so, but it probably won't do much good. A painting done on canvas has a raw appeal and a natural development that can't be created digitally.

However, a digital artist can paint something in painter, and get it printed and stretched on canvas. And they can make as many exact copies as possible. Sure, you lose much of the natural detail, but you can mass produce and sell them, so it's a trade off.

Really, if you don't want to be stuck in the past, you need to learn to evolve. Look at the recording industry. They suck because they didn't evolve and now they just sue people and get laws placed to protect their overinflated industry.

Now people are realizing that a moderately inexpensive computer and some software can challenge their industry and they're scared.

Evolve or die.

Lagged2Death · 3 months

I think this was, overall, a great post.

Nobody cares about recording history. Nobody cares about documenting the events of our time for the future. Just send us a low resolution .jpeg still frame from a movie you shot with your phone and that'll work...

Another point of view, though, is that the crappy cell-phone video is recording history. The moment is what matters; technical quality (once it meets some low threshold of comprehensibility) does not.

Look at the video of the moon landing, look at the Zapruder film. They're technically terrible. They're not even as good as we'd expect from a modern smart-phone. Yet they're among the most famous moving pictures of all time. History is not judged on the technical merits of its records.

Having an army of cell-phone wielding amateurs ensures that more moments get recorded, that more history gets recorded, than ever before.

Flash120 · 3 months

im a first year PJ student. I'm fucked aren't I.

mysuperfakename · 3 months

As someone fascinated by great photography and who will be a bride in about 6 weeks, I'm here to say that not all of us settle or are even ok with shit photos.

Here's the thing: The biggest expense at our very small (40 guests) wedding is food. The next? Photographers. Two of them. Because life is unpredictable and parents don't stay alive forever and kids grow up, we want our day to be memorialized by professionals. I am even spending big bucks on a makeup artist who understands photography enough to know what happens to skin and what is on it when a flash goes off.

I hope the future of your profession doesn't disappear. What you do and put out for us hobbyists is inspiring, enraging, beautiful, raw and pure (if done right). I have sat in front of a computer monitor with tears pouring down my face at a photograph snapped by a photo-journalist. Images that haunt me and change me as a person.

No matter how fancy of a camera you have, you either know how to use it or you don't. Believe me, I've tried!

So thank you photographers of the world. Thank you in advance for documenting what will be the happiest day of my life. Thank you for giving me the gift of beautiful images of my children, my sisters and brothers and maybe capturing the tiniest piece of the joy I'm going to be feeling on March 17th.

Edrondol · 3 months

Same thing is happening to DJs at weddings. Why hire a professional when anyone can program their iPod/computer to play a playlist. Screw reading the crowd or having an MC to control the flow, Uncle Jimmy can do the music - he has an awesome library!

ztrvz · 3 months

I've had a career in commercial photography for the past 5 years. Commercial photography isn't going anywhere. Clients will always need well lit, creative photographs of their products. Sure, the technology is changing and it's a difficult industry to crack into, but it is a highly technical and challenging trade. Cameras are only one factor and the cost is only a minor part of it. I used a 50,000 dollar IQ180 a couple weeks ago. I've worked on sets with 100k worth of lighting gear. Sure it's expensive. But nobody actually has to own their gear. Everybody rents and the client pays for it. I understand why wedding photographers may be bitter, but commercial photography is thriving in my market.

Shiba-Shiba · 3 months

Thanks for some Truth about the profession of Photography. My daughter has an Honours Degree in Photography; film & digital as she was trained in the transition. "Here are your mistakes: Re-Shoot", was what her Professor said to her on most assignments. She did, and did again, until she had made most of the mistakes that a photographer can make. She learned from them, and is doing alright for herself now.

nathanshanahan · 3 months

You've certainly captured where the photojournalism market is heading. Both traditional PJ and the wedding market that Photojournalists traditionally utilized as either bread and butter or a financially rewarding side biz are both coming under heavy fire from the democratization of photography.

Commercial photography has lost a small percentage of work to CG but in all advertising and editorial are still strong and very rewarding career prospects for the 3% of photographers who succeed in making a career of it. A few short years ago when I was assisting more often then shooting 9/10 commercial photographers I knew were making more than $200,000/year, of the PJs I'd say none making more than $45,000. It hasn't changed that much since then.

There is money to be made in photography and it's still one of the best careers out there for those lucky few with the talent, persistence and networking skills to make it.

The problem I see with a lot of photographers these days is they are no longer interested in playing the long game. Nobody wants to assist anymore, they think the've got it all in the bag as soon as they learn how to control a camera.

Without first understanding the business of photography the've got a Facebook page, the most expensive DSLR they can afford no idea what their actual costs of doing business are.

How many of 'professional' photographers do you know who have a business plan that's actually working (or even they're just following?).

I shoot about 50 days a year with mostly the same clients year-in year-out all of whom I've worked long and hard with to build a solid relationship with. I know 90% of when and what I'm likely to be shooting next year and aim to add two to three clients a year tops. I don't want to say what I make but I'm certainly not struggling.

Playing the long game, prioritizing sustainability over profitability has worked out well for me and I'd hazard to guess a lot of other photographers too.

SPAC3-MAN-SPlFF · 3 months

On point number 2, how is manipulating the RAW file in lightroom different from using vingette filters, darkroom processes, or color filters on analog film?

missdingdong · 3 months

You could learn everything I know in a few months.

No. Unless a photographer is an artist, they generally lack aesthetic sense. Most don't know anything about composition, either. As an aside, it may be personal taste, but I see very few HDR photographs that are an improvement upon what they'd look like if they were presented without that gimmick.

chewychunks · 3 months

"...contrasts with blacks so deep you could hide a body inside them."

I absolutely LOVE this statement. I see it all the time.

henriqueseckler · 3 months

This gentleman deverses a lifelong supply of nutella.

tripler6 · 3 months

First things first, I disagree on almost all points.

But I agree there is a misconception among the non-pro public that just because they grab a D3 and have "a few months" training, they're just as good as any pro.

Cameras and lenses do not separate pro photographers from amateurs.

Lighting is everything. Knowing how to use it artfully takes years.

Niqulaz · 3 months

[deleted]

Face999 · 3 months

1st I want to post this without reading any of the 17 or so previous posts.

Right on, Right on, Right on, Right on,.

I'm not a pro, but I've done it casually since the 60's. I've known many pros. It's been coming for a log tile, digital just accelerated it as has everything in the computer age.

I have a very close relative that finally earned his photojournalism degree just this year. There is no future in PJ. Just shooting is not enough, slide shows, videos, writing are all required.

The newspaper as we know it has long been dead. The staff photog is dead.

SiON42X · 3 months

Interesting. As someone who just likes to take pictures of family, friends, and some oddities I always thought I just sucked at composing a shot. But I was amazed at the difference when I went from a cheap Fuji Coolpix to a Lumix GF2 (ILC). Then when I got my 20mm F/1.7 pancake lens I realized that damn near anyone can take good pictures with a small amount of knowledge in photography, multiple shots (so you can pick the right one later), and the right equipment. Can't imagine what it would be like with a true high end camera.

braomius · 3 months

Thanks for this, I took a photography class in college and came out on top of my class with a Sony Cybershot (it has Manual so it was accepted). I was the only one with a point and shoot camera and my photos were the best because I put time and effort into them.

I later got a Cannon Rebel XTI, as I started breaking into the business I discovered it was not what I wanted to do and I am glad this article confirms that. Customers would always want crap over art and I was in it for the art.

I still take photos on my own time, for myself.

bootsbaby · 3 months

Thank you for admitting that the equipment is important. 99% of the time when I see a photo I like, I think "wow, expensive camera!" rather than "what a talented fucking person!". But obviously talent comes into it, and knowing how to use said equipment, as I have seen lots of shit photos taken by expensive cameras too!

I don't own a camera and almost exclusively use disposables, which can come out with some great stuff like when sand gets in them.

MDPhotog · 3 months

I think you're over exaggerating a little bit, especially on the equipment aspect. Yea, we're making amazing technological strides. Yea, equipment does matter.

But it doesn't matter that much. We've hit a soft plateau with DSLRs (at least for stills - video has a bit more to go). A D3 will take the same quality of pictures the day it was made and 10 years later. I do weddings, so I'll speak about that. Weddings, as the event goes, are not getting darker, are not getting faster, are not getting longer. A D3 will take amazing images in low light. A D3 can keep up with a wedding. A D3 can hold any amount of files. The files that a D3 creates will always be, to some degree, acceptable. The files can print large enough prints for any normal person. The files are passable at high ISOs.

TL;DR - If you were stuck with a D3 for the rest of your life, you could still create absolutely stunning photography that would be acceptable to anyone who cared more about the art than OMRFGZ YOU CAN'T SHOOT IN PITCHBLACKNESS AND PRINT A BILLBOARD? WHAT A NOOB

SirGooga · 3 months

This same argument about the death of photography has been ranted over and over since the first digital SLR came out.

As a Photo Editor at a retail company, I agree that you have certainly accurately described one side of the photo business. You describe the price of entry as going up (to get that holy D3), but I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think the price of entry for the consumer has gone down dramatically. Gone are the days that you need a rangefinder or SLR to shoot street photos. Just use an iPhone. The fancy equipment necessary to 'get the shot' in sports or journalistic work is now cheaper than ever, and while capabilities change depending upon the camera you have in your hand, a good photographer can work with anything (granted, you can't shoot great sports action with an iPhone). While anyone with cash can get a leg up by getting the latest and greatest cameras, they still have to study lighting techniques and have a proper sense of how to capture scenes in an interesting way. How to edit content, etc.

You leave out much of the business world of photography. What about fashion photography? Advertising? When I need a photographer for our catalog or advertising, we're willing to pay a fine photographer just as much as 5 years ago. And we don't give a damn what it's shot with as long as it looks fantastic and is of good enough resolution for the printing press.

I think that if someone wants to work as a photographer, the talent and discipline necessary hasn't significantly changed in the last few years. Maybe work is starting to dry up at a local level, but I think this is a time to rise to the challenge. Use the new equipment we have at our disposal now, and make continually better photographs year after year. This is a VERY exciting time to be a photographer!

ariel4480 · 3 months

I am a photo editor and have worked with major media agencies as well. Sadly your last line cannot be more correct. It will not last. The photo world has changed so dramatically in the past 5 years. I have watched news organizations fire their camera men (who know exposure and lighting) and put the camera's into the producers hands (who know more about telling a story than focus.) In regards to photojournalism, it's not about the shot any more. Everyone and their grandmother has a phone with a camera in it. If you happen to be in the right place in the right time - your photo will be on the cover of every news paper. (The earthquake in Haiti is the best example. There were NO photos on the wire but there were photos on twitter.)

mrhandyman · 3 months

Photography is easier than we'd like to admit.

I do extreme sports and wildlife (underwater as well). I would like to take issue with this comment.

The heavily saturated fields of photography are easy, that's why they're super saturated. Photographers who like a challenge will find a niche they can dominate easily enough. Mine is mostly a physical and technical challenge, working in weather and on surfaces that can be treacherous. There is also a massive shortage with a local documentary short about 5 positions for underwater photographers...

I think the OP has made a lot of statements that apply to portraiture/wedding/sideline sports/standard journalism. But Photography is such a broad profession there is no way to apply the OP to every field.

As far as the future, start branching into video if you haven't already, that will be where a lot of the jobs go as many fields of photography lose their legitimacy in the face of cheap compacts capable of professional-looking shots with little input from the user.

Good post though, just keep all this in mind.

EDIT: There's also no reason not to be artists. I think all photographers should at least be sketch artists as well. You'll find it really helps your composition, even with technical fields like sports photography.

AwesomeDay · 3 months

Wasn't this always the case for any creative art? I mean, look at painting. Who today, gets commissioned paintings on a regular basis for portraits? Photography killed portraiture as a career. It's just the way things work.

That said, wonderful post. Thank you.

eyko · 3 months

You're right in most of it, but I don't think the profession will die out. I believe it will evolve to be more artistic. Everybody can cook, not everybody is a chef.

kickstand · 3 months

Photography is easier than we'd like to admit ... You could learn everything I know in a few months.

Come on. Experience does matter. Somebody who shoots for hours per day, five days a week, is going to be more consistent results than a weekend duffer. I'm an amateur with 20 years of experience, but I've shot side by side with Jack Dykinga, and he sees things that I just do not see. In fact, Jack was clearly better than everybody who took the workshop.

WideLight · 3 months

Regarding #1. I've been trying to tell people this for a long time. People ask me why I'm not a professional photographer and I say: because I can't afford it. I mean, if I had 20 or 30k just lying around to build an entire collection of high-end equipment, software and printers, I'd be doing great! Money is definitely a barrier to the field.

indorock · 3 months

I agree with some points, but #2 and #5 are horseshit. You can't compare darkroom processing techniques with manipulation. Increasing dynamic range or adding vignetting does not at all distort the content of the image, the way manipulation does. It gives a certain look or feel to the picture, in the same way the choice of a certain type of film would. So that point is totally invalid.

And if you're telling me you think a $5000 camera devaluates 90% in 5 years, then you're either you've never sold second hand kit or you're getting royally ripped off. I was able to sell one of my D700 bodies last year for around $2200. With already 25K actuations on the shutter. The cheap shit does indeed devaluate fast (although not 90% in 5 years) but pro bodies most certainly do not.

If you don't believe me: D2X still sells for $900

spshlj · 3 months

You might be right that someone can learn everything there is to know about photography in a few months (or at least what you know as you mentioned) but what about experience? It is experience that prepares the photographer for upcoming situations so they know ahead of time what settings to use, or where to go to get the best angle. All of the technical knowledge in the world will never prepare you for every photograph in a given photography situation.

PIngp0NGMW · 3 months

Thanks for posting this. I am not a professional photographer and I shoot with a DSLR as a fun hobby only. I appreciate a good photo and good technical equipment for what it is. Your post coincides what with what I felt was going on in the pro photo industry.

When I was looking at portfolios to hire a wedding photographer, it really became clear to me what a huge range there was not just in terms of the quality of the final output, but also in the style. I wouldn't have thought that, after all, as a bit of a gear head, I know how awesome the top line of cameras can be and what a leg up that is. But after seeing so many, you sort of start getting an eye for cliche shots, poor composition, too much post-processing, and/or bad focus. So definitely I feel that photography is still very much an art. Similar to what you said, I believe you can learn photography relatively quickly, but it is exceedingly hard to master. And heck, it seems like a lot of it comes down to psychology too...you have to know what people will like because ultimately a person (the client) consumes your product.

I think the final thing I'd add is that the accessibility of top end DSLRs has really made, or rather, provided the illusion, that anyone can be a pro. No doubt, it is night and day the image quality difference between a point-and-shoot and even a low-end DSLR. I've definitely seen friends who were not that thrilled with their pro wedding photographer but were very happy with the shots that friends snapped with their own gear. And to be honest, sometimes yeah, you get some friends who really do know what they're doing and you get some great photos. But I do feel that getting a good pro who knows what they're doing is worth the money and also the peace of mind. I think it would definitely sour many people's experiences to know they paid for bad (i.e., unsatisfying to their taste) wedding photos.

SecureThruObscure · 3 months

You talk about five years from now, a Nikon body will be worth 500? Maybe. Maybe it'll be worth half of that, as Light Field becomes better and better.

Imagine in a decade, when Light Field cameras are in phones, and are close enough to todays camera quality.

Running_Bear23 · 3 months

Posts like this are why I still go to /all/.

Highwinds · 3 months

I'm no where near a professional photography, but I agree on all points.

However what I think might be killing the profession is people expecting photographers to work for free. What's the deal with that?

Wildfire9 · 3 months

Man... this rant needs to be in every photo-journal out there. Seriously you do know what you're talking about.

Though I've decided to not go the route of opening a photography based business, I have encountered ALL of the stuff you mentioned above in my personal and professional shooting time. You're right, its fucking frustrating as all hell to see someone just head on out there and "become a photographer!"

I do not share, however, your sentiment in your final sentence. I feel that ultimately the creative forces will win against the dullards... but not before more HDR Weddings are shot and Myspace angles are explored.

Knight203 · 3 months

Thanks for posting this, its a good if depressing read.

I've been serious about learning photography for the last 4 years. I've been practicing and many shots have just been deleted. I took a few light painting shots of friends just for fun, I thought they where pretty much crap but every single person that I show those (sans photog's) photos go ape sh*t over them. I seriously hate how gimmicky "photography" has become. HDR and light painting are just two examples. For me, if my photo isn't print worthy out of the camera its not print worthy and I've failed that shot.

FelixTCat · 3 months

For my wedding (in 1996 so before all the digital age) we bought a case of disposable cameras and sat them all over the place. I knew I didn't much care for the posed shots I could have gotten from a professional, I wanted the candid and shots from my friends eyes. Best decision ever IMO.

What is ironic is I was scanning some prints in for a friend last night and we were talking about memory lane. I noticed how there were very few pictures of her and I together even though we had been together for quite some time. If I can find a positive about the digital age its that with memory cards and storage so cheap there are alot more pictures taken....the only long term question is will they be less appreciated as they get lost in the "clutter"

PhineasC · 3 months

I prefer the candid wedding albums. Whenever I see those silly fake-looking professional shots I cringe. Everything is always softened and the colors screwed-with. Half the time I expect some damn lens flare effect.

NiceGunMrBurton · 3 months

I will click away now, feeling a little sad, yet knowing that I have read something true.

pumpjockey · 3 months

In defense of the wedding photographer against the "facebook wedding album sudopapparazzi" That was my initial idea for our wedding. "fuck it" I said, "just let everyone take pictures and it will be fine!" But no my wife demanded we have a good professional photographer take the pictures. We paid $3k cash, which in this economy made me want to cry. It took 4 months to get those pictures back and I must admit they were fucking gorgeous. The professional was wonderful at the wedding and often spotted great opportunities for amazing photos. So if you are having a wedding any time soon, go get a real professional, you won't be sorry. Hopefully.

Holybasil · 3 months

The photographers in my newspaper has their own rule of thumb as far as editing goes.

"If you can do it in a darkroom, you can do it in photoshop"

gibson_ · 3 months

One nitpick:

Would you believe $300? $500, maybe?

If you can find me a D3 for $300...fuck. Yes.

StayDilated · 3 months

Damn good writing here. You hit it every point right on the head. I applaud your honesty and feel for you.

MoreHeartThanScars · 3 months

You mentioned growing to hate what the client wants and with that I can relate. Though my good friend did teach me something to keep in mind, "Beauty is in the mind of the check holder." remembering this kept my head on straight and kept me from telling clients to fuck off. Instead of being angry I just go and shoot my own stuff after a day of work.

gnarlycharlie4u · 3 months

Professional photography is unfortunately going to become the next big "trust fund baby" occupation. Right up there with vaccinating babies in Africa.

In 20 years the technology will have advanced sufficiently enough that pretty much anyone will be able to afford a decent camera and the internet will have become so saturated with decent images that noone will care.

Therefore, the selling point will be the AWE factor. Pictures from the top of Mount Everest, from your personal space-plane, from the center of the planet. All the stuff that you see in NatGeo now x10. Only the people who already have the means/money to go to these places will be able to make a living from photographing them.

In 20 years photography will be much less about the technical knowledge and much more about documenting the inaccessible.

scazrelet · 3 months

I would like to say, that as a photographer, I KNOW I take better pictures than the kid who just got a 3D from his dad, and it shows. I've basically had them compared side by side all the damn time. They are good, they take skill, and no it's not all about the camera.

But I'm not sure it will save the craft.

j00zt1n · 3 months

The thing about making a living with photography these days, is that it isn't about how good a photographer you are but rather how good a marketer you are.

You don't need to know how aperture and ISO correlate with one another if you are a great schmoozer. Go to events, network, sell yourself, book clients, and you will prosper. I've seen straight up terrible "photographers" make a living taking pictures not because they're good at it, but because they're good at convincing people they're good at it.

It's sad, and it makes me sad, because I'm a very good photographer but I'm terrible at marketing myself, so photography will likely just remain a very expensive hobby for as long as I keep shooting.

Matlock_ · 3 months

One of the many problems, I think, is that everyone with a digital camera now thinks they can be a professional photographer. They aren't. There's a big difference between taking the occasional awesome photo, and the ability to produce high quality work on a consistent basis.

[deleted] · 3 months

You're a good writer, OP; if all else fails (as you indicated it very well might), go pro.

Blueletters · 3 months

Many times, sadly, it doesn't even matter if your photos are all that good or not.

Well, there are some parallels here with music, too. An average person may like cheap and brilliant music all the same. But I guarantee you that even an average person is capable of being moved by an extraordinary performance in a way that only an artist could deliver.

Edit: no matter what I do, that says 1. instead of 3.

bedsuavekid · 3 months

Reading your post resonates strongly with me in terms of what happened to my own industry - audio production. Thanks to the invention of the cheap PC, studio recording as an industry has been defunct since around 2000, it's just going through some drawn out thrashing.

You and I have skillsets which are no longer needed. We can still earn, but we hear the clock ticking.

CodyPhoto · 3 months

I'd love to do photography professionally but there's two barriers I can't overcome.

I share the same thoughts of you as it being something anybody can do/learn. I get compliments on my work and can't help but think that anybody could pull off the shit I've done.
I hate weddings/journalistic photography and that's where the money is.

So I stick to it because I love how it gets me out, makes me go on adventures, and pushes some form of creativity and am content with it being a hobby I can make a few bucks off of.

colormecynical · 3 months

Nice post. Found it in /r/depthhub

You claim that (a) amateur pics are of low quality compared to professionals, (b) that great technology is getting cheaper, and (c) photography isn't hard to learn. Sounds to me that the future of amateur photography is great pictures, probably with composition heavily augmented by software and other features.

You claim that (d) nobody cares about documenting the world, but (e) "user submitted photo is becoming the number one photo credit." Nobody can deny human beings are documenting more, not less. I think your lament is about the aesthetic capture, its meaning as a distinct art form, its relation to art history, the challenge of composition, waiting for the right moment, its challenging techniques. now unnecessary with focus assist and all the rest. But then the heros of silver alumn prints would have said the same thing. They were right, and you are right, and both of course wrong. The end of the amateur era ushered in new eras of photography and of the image. Likewise the end of the professional era is ushering in something else.

I think there has never been more opportunities to make better pictures. Even cell phone cameras are surprisingly good compared with a few years ago. But photographs will never capture the public imagination again, like they did when newspapers and magazines ruled the land, before video existed and it was prohibitive to shuttle film canisters between the continents. Photographs have become as boring as the everyday moments they intend to document, and only take on a supplementary existence when they accidentally record something surprising. And this image, as you have observed, has almost zero aesthetic requirements.

The future will be strange, a completely documented world. Everything and more all piled up, sorted by machines, linked to maps, stored in the cloud. Photo albums will cease to exist, for the reasons you mention. There won't be enough productive space to justify the existence of a paid professional. Let's face it, weddings, real estate photography and the rest were always necessary evils in the lives of creative people. When they disappear as opportunities, so does professional photography for all but the most talented, best connected, the strangest, rarest creatures.

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login