So. You want to become a professional photographer?

Before you guys say ANYTHING, I am NOT saying I'm a pro, or even close to being a pro. I just thought this was a great read, so maybe you will too

http://www.junshien.co​m/?p=1231

Very Sobering...

This article and the one that's out there (on Sports Shooter?) explaining why it's such a bad, bad idea to work for free should be required reading for anyone wanting to "Go Pro."

can vouch for #1..I haven't shot anything in nearly 2 months.

My 2 cents

Is that true? The majority of people photogs/wedding photogs make 26k a year? That' can't be true ...wonder where the hell that statistic came from

More than likely an industry-wide average. Remember you're balancing a few high-end pros against a lot of Uncle Bobs and GWCs.

I'd guess the former end of the scale is a much shorter moment arm than the latter.

Meh.

Nothing we haven't heard before.

All points are undoubtedly true; but the thing is...they're all true for most artists of any discipline that want to make a living out of their chosen medium.

I notice they don't mention anything about getting to do interesting, engaging work and the fundamentally rewarding aspect of being paid for pursuing a creative outlet.

If I was a completely cynical person, I'd say that some people write these articles as scare tactics to defend their turf rather than offering a list of 'helpful things to consider'...but luckily I'm an open minded, level headed individual.

Thanks for sharing though.

SOK wrote in post #8909457
Meh.

If I was a completely cynical person, I'd say that some people write these articles as scare tactics to defend their turf rather than offering a list of 'helpful things to consider'...but luckily I'm an open minded, level headed individual.

Thanks for sharing though.

That crossed my mind too, all the full time photo guys that I look up to are making a decent living..more like 50-100k/a year but they're all years and years in development and at the top of their game with contracts and arm lists of clients.

I hate stats, so useless without background info

Karl Johnston wrote in post #8909255
.....
Is that true? The majority of people photogs/wedding photogs make 26k a year? That' can't be true ...wonder where the hell that statistic came from

Right here:

But according to US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 the average professional photographer earned $26,170.

Karl Johnston wrote in post #8909255
Is that true? The majority of people photogs/wedding photogs make 26k a year? That' can't be true ...wonder where the hell that statistic came from

I know several people who are retired and do photography for extra cash. When you average people like that into the mix it brings down the average.

Also, there are a lot of "pro photogs" working in Wal-Mart portrait studio who are basically jsut making minimum wage.

Ah ..but that stat is for ALL photographers in ALL industries..which makes more sense. Originally they said portrait and wedding photographers were the focus of the topic

and then the definition of a pro is so skewed

Tumeg wrote in post #8911835
Right here:

In Duluth, Georgia, that is a fair income. In New York City you'd be living in a cardboard box. Those kind of 'industry-wide' stats are really pointless. Better to look at photographers in your area or state...

In ALL states and only the USA, of course...center of the universe, duh I forgot. Thing is in a lot of businesses, again, there are those who work in the budget category and those that work in the luxury category..retailer at LaSenza is in a different market than a retailer at Sears but they're both still retailers.

Different market, different business...I dunno what it is but 26k a year, now that I really think about it, is only for the polled candidates too and who knows where and who those photographers are.

If you're good enough you can have the potentiality to be a millionaire, like in anything generally to do with business...

I know I'm contridicting myself fro my previous post, but I had more time to think about it again now.

Though I love photography, I have never thought about going full time and I never will as long as I make the kind of money I make in my "day job". I owe it to my family to maximize my income and provide a good life for us, not to mention health insurance coverage, benefits, paid vacations, etc.

I make money on the side with my photography. Absolutely nothing worth mentioning....maybe worth a nice dinner or something to that effect.

Yo... That $26,170 is the median. That means it's what the guy right in the middle makes... If there are 60,001 photographers in the US, ranked from the highest paid to the lowest, this guy is number 30,001 on the list, counting from either the top or from the bottom. This means 30,000 other photographers in the US made more, while the remaining 30,000 photographers in the US made less.

But this can be very different from the average income. With the median the next guy down the ladder might make $26,169 or only $15,000, there is no way of knowing. The next one down might make $19,000 or $9000, the next one $5000 or $4000 and all the rest could only make $1 a year. We don't know.

The median wouldn't change at all, but the average sure would! It works the same in the other direction, going up the ladder. Something that would be quite telling would be to see if the median bounces around a lot year to year. If it does, then you'd better be suspicious of the figures. The only way a median is very useful is to track it over time and see how it performs. It still can never tell you the whole story.

Another example... The median home price in my area has dropped 40%, but the average price per square foot might only be down 20%. How can that be? Simple.... All the sales activity is in the small, inexpensive entry/investor market in the lower priced neighborhoods. The cheap homes are selling.... Some are foreclosures. There's a feeding frenzy going on. Some homes at auction are seeing 50 bidders. Even entry level homes on the general market, not in foreclosure, are seeing multiple bid activity. But the big, million dollar homes aren't selling at all. Most of their owners know this and aren't even putting them on the market. So with sales activity heavily weighted at one extreme of the market the median has come way, way down, the newspaper reporters see this and write huge front page headlines reading "Home prices plummet 40%!". But the true average price per square foot hasn't dropped nearly that much and the screaming headline is essentially incorrect, bordering on sensationalism and irresponsible reporting that might provoke panic.

Read that Labor Statistics article farther. More telling are the percentiles. The top 10 percent make $62K per year, mean income, the other 90% make less. The top 25% earn $44K per year, the other 75% make less. The top 50% make $30K a year, the rest make less per year. The upper 75% average just a little over $20K a year, while the remaining 25% make less.

There is no polling or voluntary info involved, nor much opportunity to fudge the figures deliberately. This info is based upon employer provided tax return information, using the 27-4021 occupational code they have to enter when filing with the IRS. So, anyone who is self employed or only reports their photo work as miscellaneous side income or fails to report at all wouldn't be counted. This is reiterated further down, stating that the statistics do not include info about self-employed.

It shows just over 60,000 employed as photographers in the entire U.S. That's what, on average 1200 per state? Hell, sometimes I think there are 1200 photogs at some events I cover. Or on any given day 1200 offering to shoot weddings for $200 on my regional Craigslist. Better add a couple hundred thousand wannbe/Craigslist photographers who charge a whole lot less than $2500 for a shoot, and certainly never have their income reported by an employer, into the mix. Both the median and the average incomes will drop like a rock. Then you have to dilute it all even further by the folks who do it on the side "for fun", and give their work away for far less than living wages because they have a day job that pays the rent and don't care that this really screws things up for people who work full time at photography.

If you were to factor in all the wannabes, Craigslist photogs, and hobbyists having fun screwing things up, I suspect that $26,170 is a major overstatement. To reach that figure the $200 Craigslist "wedding pro" would need to shoot and complete and get paid for 130 jobs! Hello... there are only 52 weekends a year, 104 Saturdays and Sundays. They'd have to book every one, do two jobs on some. Meanwhile a Barista at Starbucks makes $35,000, works five 8 hour days, and has benefits after 6 months on the job in case they get "Barista elbow".

Perhaps most importantly, what's stated in that study is gross income. It doesn't reflect any equipment purchases or any employee expenses. Just gross pay. To start, take income taxes off the top, federal, state and any local.

What's the Barista's investment in their job? Comfortable shoes, black or tan Dickies or shorts and a few black polo shirts.... Maybe a $15 hair cut (men... and possibly a few women) or a skrunchy to hold their hair back in a pony tail (women... and possibly a few men). Do they have to buy their own green aprons or are those a perk? They can ride the bus to work... or walk... or ride a bicycle.

Meanwhile the wedding photog, for example, needs at least a couple solid $1000 cameras, a few decent $1000+ lenses, batteries, chargers, memory cards, a computer, a suite of expensive software for the computer, a backup storage drive or two, a printer, printer supplies, several flashes, off camera shoe cords, flash brackets, overpriced "Tupperware" to stick atop their flashes, a bag or several to haul it all in, a tripod, a car, gas for the car, tires for the car, oil changes and other service for the car, insurance for the car, equipment insurance, liability insurance, health insurance, life insurance, possibly a photographers assistant, a make-up artist, maybe a second shooter... the skill to run it all smoothly and more. Plus a lot of the photogs equipment essentially has to be upgraded every three years or less, if not due to wear and tear then because of technological advancements and the need to keep competitive.

Note, too, the hourly pay estimate for photographers in those Labor Statistics is derived by dividing the total reported annual income by 2080, which assumes a 40 hour work week of five days per week. Honestly. When is the last time that you successful, self-employed shooters who are making a decent living at it only worked five days in a week and only put in eight hours in a day?

Statistics gathered by professional organizations might be much more useful and relevant, surveying their own membership. ASMP, WPA and others probably do annual income surveys, or something every few years, at least. Presumably, most of those members are established and reasonably successful... So what they report is more accurately what you would need to charge and bring in, if you want to succeed doing similar work.

One statistic I do believe is the non-scientific estimate that 9 out of 10 photography "businesses" fail. Only one in ten survives. It's probably going to get worse, a lot worse, as more and more people pick up highly automated kit DSLRs, take a few shots that their relatives rave over, and think to themselves "Hey, I can do this! It'll be lots of fun being a pro photographer". Sometimes I get sorta misty eyed remembering the days of film, when the mere idea of shooting and processing 30 rolls of film a day would keep most of the wannabes over at their day jobs.

It amazes me the number of times we see "I just got laid off and am thinking of making some money with my hobby" posted here on POTN. Think about it... Anyone who knows anything about small business knows that you almost certainly won't make profits for the first few years. During those start up years, the business will be a major drain on your financial resources, not a source of income. Better love the business (not just love photography) and have a big savings account stashed away or a good paying day job, if you are serious about doing the self-employed/startup thing. The last person who should be starting their own business, as a rule, is someone who has just found themselves unemployed. At least not photography with its cost of doing business and narrowing profit margins due to escalating oversaturation of the market.

Sir Richard Branson, who started Virgin Records at age 18 and later went on to build Virgin Music Stores, Virgin Mobile Phone company. eventually Virgin Airlines, and circumnavigate the globe in a helium balloon, not necessarily in that order, told my ex-wife he had found it quite easy to become a millionaire luxury airline owner... simply start out as a billionaire. This from someone who made his first million before he was 20 years old.

Great Post!!!

The OP link is very, very, very true - along with what I read in Alan's post - though only could skim it as being full time photog and doing post for 13 hours today my a$$ hurts, my eyes can't focus, and there's a pink elephant telling me to dance my way to bed with a leprechaun on it's back drinking a Guinness.