In what part of the photo business is there still money?

[janbanan]

What parts in the photo business can you still earn money as a freelancer? For 10-20 years ago there where many things you can make money on. Many things there is no money (or just to little). Like stock photo, many customer buy photos from site like istockphoto for a few dollar they choose between a few dollar a few hundred dollar for a photographer. Many customers now own a good camera like a cheap DSLR and they shoot products to catalogs and similar by them self. More and more the journalist in newspaper take the picture buy them self. In wedding many people don't want to pay for a real photographer, some friend do it for free. Mabe there is more examples.

What your opinion about where do you make money in the photo business?

[airfrogusmc]

Commercial/advertising....

[jacuff]

Selling used equipment.

[Tom Reichner]

What parts in the photo business can you still earn money as a freelancer?

As a true freelancer, that's really hard to say. Some folks do well selling framed prints at art shows and such. But you really need to live in an area where people have some disposable income.

There is, of course, money shooting weddings and portraits. But that's not really freelance work in the purest sense of the word. True freelance work means that you go shoot whatever you choose to shoot, and then look for a buyer for the images. A wedding isn't true freelance because someone is hiring you to do the job. You're shooting "someone else's picture".

Someone suggested shooting commercial and advertising images. This really isn't true freelance work, as you are usually being hired by a company to shoot "their" pictures. Unless, of course, you just shoot products you like, then after the images are taken you take the initiative to contact the company that makes or sells the product to see if they would be interested in purchasing the rights to use the images in their promotional efforts. That is true freelance. And it is a very, very hard way to make a living.

There are still some magazines that will send a "call for photography" out to select photographers a couple months prior to each issue. They let you know in detail what images they need for the upcoming issue, and if you happen to have any images that fit the description, you send them to the magazine's art director. The AD reviews all the images that were sent and selects the ones that he thinks will work best. You get a contract in the mail telling you how much they will pay for one time use of the image. You sign the contract and mail it back. The issue gets published with your image in it, and you get a check. This is alot of work and will usually yield anywhere from $50 to $250 per image, depending on how large they print it.

Alot of time, a little tiny bit of cash. That's true freelancing.

Taking a bunch of images you want to take, then trying to find a buyer = true freelancing.

Someone hires you to take photos that they want taken - not true freelance work. This is "paid work", which is not the same as freelance work.

[airfrogusmc]

Huh:confused:so self employeed commercial photographers that work for clients that hire them to shoot a job because of their style per job are not freelance?

[Tom Reichner]

Huh:confused:so self employeed commercial photographers that work for clients that hire them to shoot a job because of their style per job are not freelance?

No, at least not in the sense of the word that I believe to be correct.

Some people think that "freelance" and "self employed" are the same thing, but they aren't. All full time freelancers are self-employed, but many self-employed photogs are not "true" freelancers.

If you consider them to be the same, then the type of commercial work you describe would be "freelance" to you. But keep in mind there are many "true" freelancers that really struggle to make a living as a freelancer, and think that photogs that actually get "paid work" have it really easy in comparison.

It's really just about the definition of a word. "Freelance" means one thing to one person, but may mean something much different to someone else.

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah tell that to the Mrs every month when the clients aren't paying in 30 or 60 days and the mortgage keeps rolling in. Most of the freelancers you talk about are usually full time other things and sell images when ever they can.

A full time self employed photographer pays his health insurance, business insurance, liability insurance, their own taxes, equipment. Had to fight get and has to constantly be 100% on top of their game to keep a stead stable of clients that help pay all of the above and with NO safety net. Yeah you're right we have it easy:rolleyes:. Thats why theres so darn many of us successful ones out there because its so darn easy :lol:

I think anyone that works for clients, whether its shooting weddings or selling to stock houses or publications and commercial photographers that are not employed by one company are all freelance.

The main difference in commercial photographer that shoot ads that wind up in magazines is they get paid a real price for their work by the client and they aren't working on spec. It doesn't mean its easier.

In fact in some ways it can be harder because its really hard to get the gig to begin with. Then you have an entire staff of people like art directors, graphic designers and PR directors that your images have to please and then it has to please the client.



I actually think it means a photographer that works for many different clients instead of just one.

Back to the OPs original question I would say that there is still good money to be made in the commercial/advetising world. And if you're lucky enough to have a strong client base you can make a good living at it.

[Tom Reichner]

airfrogusmc,
Yes, I agree - you have it tough. I never said you have it easy. I said that photographers who actually get paid work to supplement their freelance work have an easier time getting money for their images than those who only shoot what they want to shoot, and then try to go out and find a buyer. Both are very tough. In my opinion, one is a bit tougher financially than the other.

You brought up the Mrs. Imagine if you told the Mrs. that you were quitting all your paid gigs, and were from now on only going to photograph what you feel like shooting. Tell her that then you'll just try to find people and/or publications who will pay you for the rights to use the resultant images. If you did that, I bet she would think that "true" freelance is tougher than working gigs that pay.

[gjl711]

When in doubt, go to the dictionary.

free lance (frlns)
1. A person who sells services to employers without a long-term commitment to any of them.
2. An uncommitted independent, as in politics or social life.
3. A medieval mercenary.

And another dictionary:
* Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-ˌlan(t)s\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1820

1 ausually free lance : a mercenary soldier especially of the Middle Ages : condottiere b : a person who acts independently without being affiliated with or authorized by an organization
2 : a person who pursues a profession without a long-term commitment to any one employer

So I'm assuming that we can toss out the mercenary part of the definition and keep the works without a long-term commitment part. Using that definition, a wedding photog, product photog, portrait photog, are all freelances assuming that they are not working for some established company or have a long term contract.

[RDKirk]

In fact in some ways it can be harder because its really hard to get the gig to begin with. Then you have an entire staff of people like art directors, graphic designers and PR directors that your images have to please and then it has to please the client.

I actually think it means a photographer that works for many different clients instead of just one.

That's the way I've always known it. If you're not on staff, you're freelancing, whether you're shooting on spec or by commission.

Shooting on commission means you have to market yourself rather than marketing your pictures. As you've alluded, that can certainly be harder than looking for purchasers of a ready-made product.

The problem is that "ready made" has become "commodity." We should have expected it--it happens constantly. The concept of "ready made" itself is born of the industrial revolution, and it has always been subject to being downgraded by technological advance.

But "custom made" still exists, where people value it. And those aren't always the very wealthy. Last year, sitting in my dentist's office, I struck up a conversation with a Latino man who told me he had spent $20,000 on his daughter's quinceañera celebration--they had been saving for it since she was born.

An article about the impact of the current economy on the quinceañera market says:

Sponsors are common for photos, one of the higher-ticket items, said Hugo Benson, a San Diego photographer who specializes in quinceañeras. While families cut back on other details, photos tend to be one item they keep in the budget. “Many invest in photos or video but save on something else, like flowers or favors,” he said.

http://juantornoe.blogs.com/hispanictrending/2009/04/economy-has-latinos-downsizing-quincea%C3%B1eras.html

I had known that for many photographers in the southwest US, quinceañeras are as significant a market as weddings and seniors are in other areas. In fact, there is growth in quinceañero celebrations for boys. But it had not dawned on me until that dental office conversation that the market had migrated to my area, that photography was so highly valued by that market...and that my type of photography in particular was very highly prized by that market. They save up for it and get relatives to contribute to it.

I've been developing this market in my area for the last year, realizing that it is under-served--I suspect other photographers in my area have either not considered it or have decided there's not enough money in it. Or maybe they think gringos can't serve Latinos. I'm not going to tell them.

[Karl Johnston]

When in doubt, go to the dictionary.

From now on I'm writing occupation title as: Medieval mercenary :D

[jacuff]

From now on I'm writing occupation title as: Medieval mercenary :D

Maybe the TF will pick up on that.bw!

[Concretin Nik]

Selling used equipment.
WINNER! :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

airfrogusmc,
Yes, I agree - you have it tough. I never said you have it easy. I said that photographers who actually get paid work to supplement their freelance work have an easier time getting money for their images than those who only shoot what they want to shoot, and then try to go out and find a buyer. Both are very tough. In my opinion, one is a bit tougher financially than the other.

You brought up the Mrs. Imagine if you told the Mrs. that you were quitting all your paid gigs, and were from now on only going to photograph what you feel like shooting. Tell her that then you'll just try to find people and/or publications who will pay you for the rights to use the resultant images. If you did that, I bet she would think that "true" freelance is tougher than working gigs that pay.


I shoot what ever I want for me and get paid to shoot most of what I would shoot for me anyway . Enough to buy the equipment I need and keep my technical skills at a very high level. So you do that and only that full time and have no other income?

[RDKirk]

Yes, I agree - you have it tough. I never said you have it easy. I said that photographers who actually get paid work to supplement their freelance work have an easier time getting money for their images than those who only shoot what they want to shoot, and then try to go out and find a buyer. Both are very tough. In my opinion, one is a bit tougher financially than the other.

You're longing for a period that was very recent and very short in the history of art. Only in the latter half of the 20th century was that possible. For hundreds of years before Kodachrome, artists financed their personal work with patronized work.

Welcome back.

[Perry Ge]

Fashion, commercial, advertising...big industries - if you're good enough, you certainly won't find yourself out of work. Quite the opposite. You'll get swamped.

[Karl Johnston]

It's really, really true..there may be a lot of photographers out there but there's very few higher tier photographers and the small amount that there are they are all fully booked/always busy.

I'm finding the more commercial projects I get I can only handle one project per week..i'm not complaining but the amount of work involved is a lot.

[Perry Ge]

I'm finding the more commercial projects I get I can only handle one project per week..i'm not complaining but the amount of work involved is a lot.
Yes. And you don't have to be the best of the best. I certainly am not, but during my brief stint as a freelance fashion photographer I got SWAMPED to the point where I had to turn down the vast majority of stuff (and, sadly, the moolah $$$ :p) offered my way.

[ssim]

Man talk about splitting hairs on the definition of what a freelancer is. I think it is generally felt that if one has a full time job elsewhere and shoots outside of this job, is generally a freelancer. At the end of the day does it matter for the question posed here.

There are opportunities out there but they aren't going to land in your lap. You have to work at marketing yourself, whether that be in wedding photography or trying to land commercial work. The latter is where I find the returns to be more rewarding than doing a wedding or portraits. Most photograhers have a preference and excel at one area or another. If that is the case with you then develop yourself a reasonable marketing plan and work it for all its worth.

[shaggymatt]

I'd have to say, diversity is where the money is. I don't know your history, if you're shooting paid gigs now or not. But the start is establishing a namesake for yourself, which is your biggest challenge when starting out. You can't get anywhere regardless of your talent if you don't market yourself effectively.

I started out doing weddings with a buddy and we now handle our respective states, he books one state, and I book the other, and we back each other. I shoot my daughter's sporting events, I get tons of exposure that way. After an event, I send out a link to the pictures, which generates further inquiries. Senior pictures from what I understand is where the money REALLY is. I haven't made it there yet, feel too strongly that you need a studio option on standby for senior pictures, which I really don't have yet.

[airfrogusmc]

I'd have to say, diversity is where the money is. I don't know your history, if you're shooting paid gigs now or not. But the start is establishing a namesake for yourself, which is your biggest challenge when starting out. You can't get anywhere regardless of your talent if you don't market yourself effectively.

I started out doing weddings with a buddy and we now handle our respective states, he books one state, and I book the other, and we back each other. I shoot my daughter's sporting events, I get tons of exposure that way. After an event, I send out a link to the pictures, which generates further inquiries. Senior pictures from what I understand is where the money REALLY is. I haven't made it there yet, feel too strongly that you need a studio option on standby for senior pictures, which I really don't have yet.

Actually my experience is just the opposite. Most of what you describe is spec shooting and believe me there is far more lucrative areas in photography and most of them are very specialized. Having a certain skill is an area that not everyone has experience in can be extremely valuable. I once worked for a photographer that did high end weddings and had a separate commercial business with a completely different name where he hired all large format photographers to just shoot the commercial stuff because he knew that a lot of corporate clients wouldn't use a wedding photographer to shoot corporate work and his wedding clients wouldn't pay corporate rates. I think moving forward especially in areas outside wedding/portrait photography have a special niche is where you will see photographer commanding high rates.

[shaggymatt]

I once worked for a photographer that did high end weddings and had a separate commercial business with a completely different name where he hired all large format photographers to just shoot the commercial stuff because he knew that a lot of corporate clients wouldn't use a wedding photographer to shoot corporate work and his wedding clients wouldn't pay corporate rates. I think moving forward especially in areas outside wedding/portrait photography have a special niche is where you will see photographer commanding high rates.

That's not a bad idea actually. I do my work part time, have a day job to pay the mortgage. I'm fully legit, EIN, insured, blah blah. I can't imagine running books, marketing, and the work load associated withr two companies that are booked that frequently though! I'd love to move outside of weddings primarily myself. I actually DO enjoy shooting them though. The amount of time and effort put into a wedding after the fact is what I don't like, prefer to be behind the camera and not the computer (after all that is my day job!). I've done some corporate and some real estate/architecture work as well. Those are relatively quick in/out and quick to turn around which = higher profit margins.

But still many of the photographers I know that are full time working professionals, seem to shoot weddings on the weekends, and do portraiture during the week in their studios. A lot of that is going to depend on your geographical area as well. We're certainly not the hub of fashion in South Central PA, unless you consider the Amish and Mennonite strutting their dress blacks, and they shun having their picture taken!

[cdifoto]

What your opinion about where do you make money in the photo business?
Flash diffusers.

[shaggymatt]

Flash diffusers.

Nice. bw!

[RDKirk]

Actually my experience is just the opposite. Most of what you describe is spec shooting and believe me there is far more lucrative areas in photography and most of them are very specialized.

I would agree. As run-of-the-mill photography in all areas becomes more and more of a Wal-Mart commodity, it will be the high-end specialists who survive because people will be sold on them, not just the product. It's not a greatly different thing from named fashion designers.

In some portrait forums, there is the occasional question from new people, "Should I sign my work."

The answer is: "You want to become well-known enough that people want your signature on your work."

[Karl Johnston]

Yes. And you don't have to be the best of the best. I certainly am not, but during my brief stint as a freelance fashion photographer I got SWAMPED to the point where I had to turn down the vast majority of stuff (and, sadly, the moolah $$$ :p) offered my way.
You really just have to be available :D

[Frugal]

If your doing work for hire, your ability to market yourself will contribute far more to your success than your gear or your photographic abilities (provided that your reasonably competent and not shooting magazine covers). I know that many here don't agree with that, but it's true for most self employed jobs.

There's a lot of lower tier commercial work out there and businesses are used to compensating you appropriately - while many consumers are not. Of course shooting salads isn't the most exciting work, but I fill in with portraits to keep me happy.

[brownbugger]

Ive been thinking about this as well , i work freelance as a photojournalist, the money isnt exciting , people are working for really cheap & malpractices on both ends are rampant.

The lack of good money also creates a lot of selfdoubt , Also as things are I also think its not just enough being a good photographer , one has to be highly social , doing his or her pr , being in the news , beating ones own trumpet , all of the things which Ive been lacking in.

[sfaust]

Advertising, commercial, industrial, technical, teaching, portraits, weddings, workshops, authoring, architectural, forensics, you name it....

As long as you have sound photography skills, can market yourself effectively, can run a successful business, and aren't inept at business relationships, you have a pretty good chance of making a decent living in photography. Marketing, business skills, and talent are the key IMO.

It's really, really true..there may be a lot of photographers out there but there's very few higher tier photographers and the small amount that there are they are all fully booked/always busy.

I'm finding the more commercial projects I get I can only handle one project per week..i'm not complaining but the amount of work involved is a lot.

And I hope you are charging them for a full weeks rate! If you are tied up for a week for a client on a shoot, then the client needs to fund your business for that entire week.

A lot of clients and photographers may think $2K or $3K a day is high. But when the full scope of what work is being performed to support that 1 day of shooting, the value becomes evident. It's really one day shooting, two days in post production, another day for archiving, creating discs, keywords/metadata, copyright registrations, etc. And that doesn't count any prep time before the shoot.

It's one reason I like the Creative/Usage/Expenses model over a day rate. Quoting $3K for a days worth of shooting doesn't show the full picture. But when you quote say $1,500 for creative, $450 post, $125 conversions/CD, $550 for prep, expenses, usage, and so on they client sees where the time/money is going, rather than thinking the photographer is making $3K for 8 hours of work.

. I can't imagine running books, marketing, and the work load associated withr two companies that are booked that frequently though!

Hire 'freelancers' :) Seriously, its not that bad. You can outsource accounting, booking, taxes, legal, etc, and also hire an assistant to help with administration duties, website update, etc. It is a huge workload, but if booked that frequently the money is there to outsource a lot of the work to allow the photographer to concentrate on what he is best at. Photography.

Actually my experience is just the opposite. Most of what you describe is spec shooting and believe me there is far more lucrative areas in photography and most of them are very specialized. Having a certain skill is an area that not everyone has experience in can be extremely valuable.

Ditto. Specializing in one or more niche areas will work much better than generalizing. However, it will take a longer time to build up the business, and there is a higher risk that if the niche dries up or an experienced competitor comes along the business could suffer more. Generalizing to start building the business, then moving to a mix of the two IMO is a perfect approach. Having a couple areas to help offset the market trends is like value added diversity in a stock portfolio. They tend to offset the highs and lows for steady growth.

[airfrogusmc]

Advertising, commercial, industrial, technical, teaching, portraits, weddings, workshops, authoring, architectural, forensics, you name it....

As long as you have sound photography skills, can market yourself effectively, can run a successful business, and aren't inept at business relationships, you have a pretty good chance of making a decent living in photography. Marketing, business skills, and talent are the key IMO.



And I hope you are charging them for a full weeks rate! If you are tied up for a week for a client on a shoot, then the client needs to fund your business for that entire week.

A lot of clients and photographers may think $2K or $3K a day is high. But when the full scope of what work is being performed to support that 1 day of shooting, the value becomes evident. It's really one day shooting, two days in post production, another day for archiving, creating discs, keywords/metadata, copyright registrations, etc. And that doesn't count any prep time before the shoot.

It's one reason I like the Creative/Usage/Expenses model over a day rate. Quoting $3K for a days worth of shooting doesn't show the full picture. But when you quote say $1,500 for creative, $450 post, $125 conversions/CD, $550 for prep, expenses, usage, and so on they client sees where the time/money is going, rather than thinking the photographer is making $3K for 8 hours of work.



Hire 'freelancers' :) Seriously, its not that bad. You can outsource accounting, booking, taxes, legal, etc, and also hire an assistant to help with administration duties, website update, etc. It is a huge workload, but if booked that frequently the money is there to outsource a lot of the work to allow the photographer to concentrate on what he is best at. Photography.



Ditto. Specializing in one or more niche areas will work much better than generalizing. However, it will take a longer time to build up the business, and there is a higher risk that if the niche dries up or an experienced competitor comes along the business could suffer more. Generalizing to start building the business, then moving to a mix of the two IMO is a perfect approach. Having a couple areas to help offset the market trends is like value added diversity in a stock portfolio. They tend to offset the highs and lows for steady growth.

Agree,

Thats why relationships with your clients, having MANY steady clients so if one leaves the stable its only a speed bump, always giving them your best so they have no reason to look elsewhere oh yes and patients because like I said it took me 5 years to land my biggest client and 2 1/2 to land another one of my big clients. And find an area thats not going to dry up...
To be successful in whatever field you have to deliver something they can't get anywhere else. Your vision, your professionalism, YOU.

[Picture North Carolina]

Marketing, business skills, and talent are the key IMO.

In that order.

[airfrogusmc]

In that order.

I would say skills = to everything. If your working with other visual professionals if you don't have the chops and you can't deliver you can pack it up pretty quick. Its a very small world out there and they all know one another, word gets around pretty quick. So marketing will get you in the door but if you want to stay at the table and eat you had better bring the bacon.

I'm no marketing genius but I really know the area I work in. Which is the most important ingredients. Knowing your clients/and the area you are working in. Thats what will give you credibility, get you in the door, then you have to deliver to stay.

Anyway thats whats worked for me.

[Picture North Carolina]

I would say skills = to everything. If your working with other visual professionals if you don't have the chops and you can't deliver you can pack it up pretty quick. Its a very small world out there and they all know one another, word gets around pretty quick. So marketing will get you in the door but if you want to stay at the table and eat you had better bring the bacon.

I'm no marketing genius but I really know the area I work in. Which is the most important ingredients. Knowing your clients/and the area you are working in. Thats what will give you credibility, get you in the door, then you have to deliver to stay.

Anyway thats whats worked for me.

True, but which comes first... the chicken or the egg. How do those "other visual professionals" know about you if you did not make yourself known to them in the first place? Marketing and promotion.

Edit: I think it's assumed technical competence is a given. Anybody striving to be a pro should know they need to be technically able to perform. At least I hope so.

[Tom Reichner]

Edit: I think it's assumed technical competence is a given. Anybody striving to be a pro should know they need to be technically able to perform. At least I hope so.

Do you mean technical competence with the camera - Photographic Technical Excellence? Or do you mean technical competence with a computer with respect to use of PP software, modifying files, etc?

[Wild Style]

Huh:confused:so self employeed commercial photographers that work for clients that hire them to shoot a job because of their style per job are not freelance?freelance: 2 : a person who pursues a profession without a long-term commitment to any one employer

link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freelance)

[RDKirk]

Do you mean technical competence with the camera - Photographic Technical Excellence? Or do you mean technical competence with a computer with respect to use of PP software, modifying files, etc?

If there is no difference in the ultimate product or fee, it's irrelevant to the client.

[wickerprints]

What your opinion about where do you make money in the photo business?

Set up a blog, write completely bizarre, nonsensical, but authoritative-sounding reviews about all kinds of camera equipment, make blanket statements about how digital bodies are just crap and film will always be the BEST THING EVAR, and then top it off with appeals to support your ever-growing family. Oh, and don't forget, marry a woman who can buy herself a Porsche Cayenne.

:p:p:p

[Picture North Carolina]

Do you mean technical competence with the camera - Photographic Technical Excellence? Or do you mean technical competence with a computer with respect to use of PP software, modifying files, etc?

Neither and both.

In using highly-generic terminology such as "technical competence," I am trying to remove the emphasis from it.

Let's simply define "technical competence" as a person who can produce a good, average professional-level image.

That being said, the point I'm trying to make is this: in (at least) my experience, I have run across many people who are highly successful (not just photogs) who are average in their given field, but excel in marketing, self-promotion.

On the other hand, I have run across even more people who are excellent in their given field, but totally inept at marketing and self-promotion.

In the long-run, I think a photog who is competent technically but excels at marketing, promotions, has the personality, etc., is going to be more successful than one who's attributes are the opposite.

[Picture North Carolina]

Set up a blog, write completely bizarre, nonsensical, but authoritative-sounding reviews about all kinds of camera equipment, make blanket statements about how digital bodies are just crap and film will always be the BEST THING EVAR, ...

Wickerprints! Are your real-life initials K.R.? :lol:

[wickerprints]

Wickerprints! Are your real-life initials K.R.? :lol:

Guilty as charged! ;)

[airfrogusmc]

True, but which comes first... the chicken or the egg. How do those "other visual professionals" know about you if you did not make yourself known to them in the first place? Marketing and promotion.

Edit: I think it's assumed technical competence is a given. Anybody striving to be a pro should know they need to be technically able to perform. At least I hope so.

Absolutely thats why I said =. One without the other is suicide.

[airfrogusmc]

Neither and both.

In using highly-generic terminology such as "technical competence," I am trying to remove the emphasis from it.

Let's simply define "technical competence" as a person who can produce a good, average professional-level image.

That being said, the point I'm trying to make is this: in (at least) my experience, I have run across many people who are highly successful (not just photogs) who are average in their given field, but excel in marketing, self-promotion.

On the other hand, I have run across even more people who are excellent in their given field, but totally inept at marketing and self-promotion.

In the long-run, I think a photog who is competent technically but excels at marketing, promotions, has the personality, etc., is going to be more successful than one who's attributes are the opposite.


That would depend on your client base. There are clients out there in some industries where word of mouth is your marketing and you only build a strong reputation from delivering a high quality product. They would only hire a photographer that was recommended by a colleague. You could do mass mailings have websites, etc but without someone recommending you the door will never open. The right eyes will never see your work.

In some cases some photographers worked inside some of the industries as staff photographers for those industries thus making personal connections by giving those product lines the images the were looking for. Those prior connections is the marketing.

Again its a small world out there and they all talk. In that case the marketing is the product you deliver and that goes back to technical and visual skill.
A good deal of high end commercial clients are exactly what I've described. They don't want to take a chance on an unknown entity

[Picture North Carolina]

There are clients out there in some industries where word of mouth is your marketing and you only build a strong reputation from delivering a high quality product...

Again its a small world out there and they all talk.

Agree, but I think you missed the subtlety of what I wrote. Again, it's the chicken and the egg analogy. Above I mentioned personality. It's an integral part of self-promotion.

Will an excellent photog get those referrals if he is an insufferable a-hole? And even when he is referred, once the new client meets this IAH, is there a chance they will tell him thanks, but no thanks? It can, and does happen.

I guess it's splitting hairs, but all the way around the marketing, business and self-promotion skills are mandatory whereas excellent technical skills are not (always), and average skills may do just fine..

[Picture North Carolina]

An apology to the OP. The above discussion of marketing skills may be useful, but that is not the origin of your query.

I agree with those who say that specializing is a good tact. On one hand, the old saying "do one thing and do it right" may be overkill in photography because having a few skill sets would be nice.

On the other hand, the old saying "he was an amateur at everything, but an expert at nothing" also applies.

Here's an article that may be helpful to you on this point:

http://blogs.photopreneur.com/brand-yourself-as-an-expert-photographer

[airfrogusmc]

Agree, but I think you missed the subtlety of what I wrote. Again, it's the chicken and the egg analogy. Above I mentioned personality. It's an integral part of self-promotion.

Will an excellent photog get those referrals if he is an insufferable a-hole? And even when he is referred, once the new client meets this IAH, is there a chance they will tell him thanks, but no thanks? It can, and does happen.

I guess it's splitting hairs, but all the way around the marketing, business and self-promotion skills are mandatory whereas excellent technical skills are not, and average skills will do just fine..

CH thats why I said = and I think discussions like this would be very valuable to someone just strating out. ;).

[airfrogusmc]

An apology to the OP. The above discussion of marketing skills may be useful, but that is not the origin of your query.

I agree with those who say that specializing is a good tact. On one hand, the old saying "do one thing and do it right" may be overkill in photography because having a few skill sets would be nice.

On the other hand, the old saying "he was an amateur at everything, but an expert at nothing" also applies.

Here's an article that may be helpful to you on this point"

http://blogs.photopreneur.com/brand-yourself-as-an-expert-photographer (http://blogs.photopreneur.com/brand-yourself-as-an-expert-photographer)

I wasn't saying just do ONE THING but don't try to be everything to everybody. If you do you will wind not being good at anything. I've seen it with friends of mine, trying to take on everything.

[Picture North Carolina]

I wasn't saying just do ONE THING but don't try to be everything to everybody. If you do you will wind not being good at anything. I've seen it with friends of mine, trying to take on everything.

Well, I think you misinterpreted me on that one. I didn't have anything that you said in mind. I agree with you. I, too, have known people who failed miserably trying to be a jack-of-all-trades. Rather, I was trying to give the thread back to the OP and to the original subject.

[Jewel]

How about wedding photographers?

[nemo man]

Well unless you are in the David Bailey/Annie Leibovitz category I'd forget it. Photography now is pretty much the sole domain of well-heeled, early retired, smug, sanctimonious amateur tossers (like me) who have loads of gear, masses of time, and nowt to shoot, Who wants to be a wedding tog or shoot babies and fat clients on an ultra-white background all day for a pittance!

I really must get another L lens....

[Picture North Carolina]

Well unless you are in the... Annie Leibovitz category....

(Now why would I want to be bankrupt as well as in the process of being sued by everybody I've ever knew plus neighbors I've never even met? :) (sorry, couldn't resist. ;) )

Jewel, nothing wrong with wedding photography. Many people make a living at it and weddings are (1) something that will always be around, and (2) something that cannot be exported to China or India.

I do not shoot weddings, but I assume in addition to the necessary technical skills it would take a certain personality. If you have that personality, and can work with kids, you can also tug at the heart$ of parent$ by taking great shots of Billy Bob and Peggy Sue.

On the other hand, if you don't have the necessary personality there's always widgets.

[nemo man]

On the other hand, if you don't have the necessary personality there's always widgets.

Eh, lad, there's nowt wrong with widgets.

Rob (in Mumbai)

[airfrogusmc]

Well, I think you misinterpreted me on that one. I didn't have anything that you said in mind. I agree with you. I, too, have known people who failed miserably trying to be a jack-of-all-trades. Rather, I was trying to give the thread back to the OP and to the original subject.

Cool. Sometimes I'm guilty of miss-reading things. :lol:

[Picture North Carolina]

Cool. Sometimes I'm guilty of miss-reading things. :lol:

And, my friend, such is the nature of the internet...

Without body language, voice inflections, and facial expressions, simple and sincere "hello's" have been know to start wars! :) ;)