Is the era of "Paid Photographers" drawing to a close?

ConDigital wrote in post #9172712
I don't think the blame I see being applied to up and coming 'togs is all that fair. I can understand how it must annoy established 'togs, but most people start off their own business by undercutting the competition. It's how you get your foot in the door.

Perhaps undercut is the wrong word, but taking the little jobs is how you get started. It is how I got started in IT and slowly built my resume and now I make a lot more than the $12/hr I started at.

What I find funny, I people think that someone who hired a $500 photographer was ever really looking at the $5000 one. It is not like, "I have a budget of anywhere from 1-25000 for the wedding photography, so I will pick the guy charging $200 on craigslist over the experienced pro that I could fly in." Most people hiring the cheap guys don't have the means to even consider the established pros, period. If they did, they would be shopping on quality of portfolio, and not price.

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #9174954
Ahhh, good old Land Rovers.

I love my 1969 series 2A

tkbslc wrote in post #9175074
Perhaps undercut is the wrong word, but taking the little jobs is how you get started. It is how I got started in IT and slowly built my resume and now I make a lot more than the $12/hr I started at.

What I find funny, I people think that someone who hired a $500 photographer was ever really looking at the $5000 one. It is not like, "I have a budget of anywhere from 1-25000 for the wedding photography, so I will pick the guy charging $200 on craigslist over the experienced pro that I could fly in." Most people hiring the cheap guys don't have the means to even consider the established pros, period. If they did, they would be shopping on quality of portfolio, and not price.

How many photos does a couple really need of the "big day" ?

Hope not, people are just starting to pay me good. I've been taking pictures for a long time, and just now feeling like I'm getting good at it.

tkbslc wrote in post #9175074
Perhaps undercut is the wrong word, but taking the little jobs is how you get started. It is how I got started in IT and slowly built my resume and now I make a lot more than the $12/hr I started at.

What I find funny, I people think that someone who hired a $500 photographer was ever really looking at the $5000 one. It is not like, "I have a budget of anywhere from 1-25000 for the wedding photography, so I will pick the guy charging $200 on craigslist over the experienced pro that I could fly in." Most people hiring the cheap guys don't have the means to even consider the established pros, period. If they did, they would be shopping on quality of portfolio, and not price.

very very well put.

ConDigital wrote in post #9175187
How many photos does a couple really need of the "big day" ?

How much money does one really need?

How much oil do we really need?

How new does your car have to really be?

How much should you really weigh?

different people have different values not excluding the weight of those values

How many portraits do you need of your kids as they grow up? I dunno about you but when I'm old and gray and can't remember where my glasses are I'd like to relive my life through looking at the photos of my family growing up. I'd be the kinda guy to get my kids photos done well every year, if not by myself every day or week.

Need, or want?

I went to a seminar nearly 30 years ago where the presenter actually centered on this question. His answer: 24. Well...... I suspect that may have had to do with how manufacturers assembled their albums at the time .

But - he was trying to make a point about "crucial" shots that would be remembered and revisited decades hence vs. all the other "candid" shots.

The model has changed for today so I don't know what the real answer is, other than "whatever the client wants to pay for." Many clients still don't understand that just because their's little to no media cost (film, paper prints), there is still a very substantial time investment in processing.

What I do think is ridiculous is when the photographer presents the b/g with 2000+ images.

Unless somebody is paying me $5k+ I have no inclination to waste my time processing that HUGE numbers of images. And if I can't pre-edit my shots - in "brain" and camera - down to a more manageable amount, then there's something wrong with the way I'm shooting a wedding.

ConDigital wrote in post #9175187
How many photos does a couple really need of the "big day" ?

sapearl wrote in post #9175995
Need, or want?

I went to a seminar nearly 30 years ago where the presenter actually centered on this question. His answer: 24. Well...... I suspect that may have had to do with how manufacturers assembled their albums at the time .

But - he was trying to make a point about "crucial" shots that would be remembered and revisited decades hence vs. all the other "candid" shots.

The model has changed for today so I don't know what the real answer is, other than "whatever the client wants to pay for." Many clients still don't understand that just because their's little to no media cost (film, paper prints), there is still a very substantial time investment in processing.

What I do think is ridiculous is when the photographer presents the b/g with 2000+ images.

Unless somebody is paying me $5k+ I have no inclination to waste my time processing that HUGE numbers of images. And if I can't pre-edit my shots - in "brain" and camera - down to a more manageable amount, then there's something wrong with the way I'm shooting a wedding.

Truth indeed.

The ability to shoot large numbers of photographs should not automatically mean the need to shoot large numbers of shots. Clients aren't generally bothered about the number of shots, the quality is what they want (and pay for).

Unfortunately "spray and pray" seems to be a digital phenomenon.

Slightly off topic, I am amazed at the people who go on about the number of photos they took each year - how many of the 10,000 were actually wall hanging quality? Better to develop an eye and take 100-1000 better (or great) quality imho.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9176203
Slightly off topic, I am amazed at the people who go on about the number of photos they took each year - how many of the 10,000 were actually wall hanging quality? Better to develop an eye and take 100-1000 better (or great) quality imho.

A very interesting point to ponder.

I can see doing a lot of shooting--perhaps even that much shooting. But I can't see presenting that many images to the client....

...except by photographers who do nothing but shoot and burn. This may be offensive to a great many people, but I honestly don't see handing a CD of the straight-out-of-the-camera output to a bride as a respectable product. That's about like a contractor selling houses to the average couples that is nothing but frame and exterior--most couples are going to make a hash out of trying to finish the job, even if they think going in that they can handle the finishing and are saving money.

In most cases, the bride who gets nothing but a CD with 2000+ unretouched images is never going to make that album, her mother is never going to get an album or any wall portraits, her bridesmaids are never going their albums; the CD is going into a drawer where eventually it will get corrupted or lost.

People have different views of their jobs and profession, but I've never considered myself just a camera operator or "picher taker." I was a painter before becoming a photographer, so the final work of art has always been my emphasis--camera or brush has always been just the means of getting there.

Newbies often ask, "How many keepers do you get?"

My standard answer is: Only one...the best one.

Of course, I realize they want to know what percentage of the photographs I take in a session are technically acceptable. Technical acceptability, however, is relatively easy and becoming easier with each generation of cameras. But of all the images I take, when I've really hammered them with my best-considered senses of technique and aesthetics, there will finally be one that most deserves to go front page above the fold, on the cover, in the portfolio, or on the wall

ConDigital wrote in post #9175187
How many photos does a couple really need of the "big day" ?

I guess none? Certainly somone has lived a long and happy life somewhere without a photo of their wedding.

What does that have to do with anything? McDonald's makes billions per year selling a product people could very easily live without.

20droger wrote in post #9160446
So true. People often get degrees or even doctorates in fields that do not lend themselves to earning a good income.

Case in point, I have a Th.D., which is not even good for wrapping fish (the parchment is too stiff).

Indeed. I thought long and hard about going to grad school in history, but not only are there only a few jobs open each year, at a research institution Assist. Profs. only earn about $55,000/yr in salary; that's a lot of education for such a relatively little amount.

Got that right Neil - with high volume spray and pray, that just means I'd have to replace the bodies sooner......

As for true keepers - and these are what I'd consider to be "frameable" and suitable for show competition - I am very happy if I get 6 out of every 100 that I want to do additional PP on for the purpose of display.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9176203
Truth indeed.

The ability to shoot large numbers of photographs should not automatically mean the need to shoot large numbers of shots. ......Unfortunately "spray and pray" seems to be a digital phenomenon.

Slightly off topic, I am amazed at the people who go on about the number of photos they took each year - how many of the 10,000 were actually wall hanging quality? Better to develop an eye and take 100-1000 better (or great) quality imho.

I know where you're coming from Mr. Kirk. My family and I have had some very interesting conversations over the years.

My father was a professional artist for nearly 7 decades and also taught high school art ( http://pearlphoto.blog​spot.com …ite-flats-and-my-dad.html ) My sister is an art professor at the local college ..... we often talk issues of quality vs. quantity.... and how things will often ripple back and forth between the painted canvass and the optical sensor.

And here as usual, is where it gets into the matter of educating the buying public, or at least demonstrating the differences between the high volume hack, and the carefully composed Capa. Some refer to this as marketting .

RDKirk wrote in post #9176649
I can see doing a lot of shooting--perhaps even that much shooting. But I can't see presenting that many images to the client....

...except by photographers who do nothing but shoot and burn. This may be offensive to a great many people, but I honestly don't see handing a CD of the straight-out-of-the-camera output to a bride as a respectable product. That's about like a contractor selling houses to the average couples that is nothing but frame and exterior--most couples are going to make a hash out of trying to finish the job, even if they think going in that they can handle the finishing and are saving money.

In most cases, the bride who gets nothing but a CD with 2000+ unretouched images is never going to make that album, her mother is never going to get an album or any wall portraits, her bridesmaids are never going their albums; the CD is going into a drawer where eventually it will get corrupted or lost.

People have different views of their jobs and profession, but I've never considered myself just a camera operator or "picher taker." I was a painter before becoming a photographer, so the final work of art has always been my emphasis--camera or brush has always been just the means of getting there.