Just Curious...

[Michelle Allmon]

you know what i just realized, too? a lot of those photogs are probably not claiming their full income.

[shutterflypro]

We rarely do....

[bondarnes]

Originally Posted by LadyShutterBug

people advertising their services in exchange for a "working car" on craiglist are quite obviously NOT the brightest crayons in the box... and if their salaries are figured in to any kind of "professional photographer" median, then that figure is WHACK.

*removing myself from the soapbox that has somehow made its way under my feet*

I assure you that someone like that doesn't have the $ 85.00 to join TPPA and therefore would not be included in our membership survey. And hey, if your soapbox disappears then I will bring you another. Go girl!

[Michelle Allmon]

We rarely do....

oh, REALLY?!

[brad]

Every time I hear that you can't make money in photography, I point to studios like Blauvelt... or even Fran's. You can't build a studio like that without making a little money at it.

Yes, the averages can be discouraging... but they are averages... and they include $10/hour kids working at JC Penney as well as people who are doing it part time and/or have no clue how to run a business.

What I like to think is that I am not average. And the money I will bring in will prove it.

With virtually zero marketing, I'm already getting close to that "average" and I only see business increasing now that I have the studio open.

Open a business, treat it as a business, make a comfortable living. It *can* be done.

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by LadyShutterBug

people advertising their services in exchange for a "working car" on craiglist are quite obviously NOT the brightest crayons in the box... and if their salaries are figured in to any kind of "professional photographer" median, then that figure is WHACK.

Lol, well-said.

I guess if I ever do venture out into photography exclusively that my background in accounting (having written entire financial programs for companies) will come in real handy. Until I'm thankful that I don't have to venture into the whole business side and can still have fun :)

[LadyShutterBug]

i find that the business aspect doesn't keepme from having fun :)

if anythign, it frees me up to have more time and flexibility to shoot for fun... i've been to boston, banff, and chicago all this past year and never would have been able to do those trips had i still been in healthcare administration.

[CaptainTom]

I've gone through two cycles of "professional photographer".
First time was in the eighties in Southern California. I did a lot of freelance PJ work, weddings, portraits, etc. Whatever would generate income was a good gig.

I got swallowed up by not keeping up with technology, and not being able to provide the "new" services offered by others. I.E. computer technology. Subsequent day job was OK, but put me into a whole new field of endeavor. I actually learned to repair pianos, and had a full time business that allowed me to live very comfortably.

Second time was only three years ago. I decided to get back into photography and re-established my passion, helped out by now being technologically aware. Digital is terrific, and with a background in film, I was up and running immediately. Business was good, but since I was not established in the area, I was not growing fast enough to keep up with day to day expenses. Marketing myself has always been my shortcoming. I am a good salesman, but I find that getting the potential customers is hard for me. Back to a day job, at least for now. I can still do some income producing work, and I don't have to worry about it paying all the bills.

Don't fret over the low income averages for photographers. There are many levels of pro-photographer. Some make only enough to support their equipment habit, and others make more than you can believe.. The figures are skewed because the really low income photogs vastly outnumber the real full time business people.

So, the answer to the original question is : NO I don't have a studio

[Stephen H]

I'm a professional engineer, and make a reasonable living at it. But the world of engineering is set up completely differently from that of photography. I had to get an engineering degree, and there's not a whole of people with the ability and desire to do that. For my job, I had to have adequate experience, take 2- 8 hour tests, get references from other engineers, and be licensed by the state engineering board. But when it comes to photography, there's not any kind of legal or practical distinction required to term oneself a "pro" and start charging money for it. There's no education requirement, no experience requirement, no equipment requirement, not even a talent requirement, and you can do it anywhere, out of your own home. On top of that, photography can be fun, so millions of us pay out our money just to do it as a hobby. And you can have all kinds of personal handicaps that might interfere with other jobs and still do photography. With that kind of situation, photography is going to have a lot of people on the low end of the scale who are marginally able to make a living at it or make any income from it.

I think the survey would be a whole lot more informative if, say, it looked at median income for people with 4-year photography degrees working in photography.

I haven't counted noses in my town, but I would be curious what the breakdown of those people is job-wise. For example, say Walmart has a photo studio. Are those people running it highly skilled photographers? Or are they some employee that is pulled aside and given an hour's instruction in how to work things there? In the former case, there might be an expectation of a decent income. In the latter case, the person is going to be fairly low paid, but still gets averaged in as a salaried "professional photographer".

[NathanJK]

Originally Posted by Stephen H

I think the survey would be a whole lot more informative if, say, it looked at median income for people with 4-year photography degrees working in photography.

I haven't counted noses in my town, but I would be curious what the breakdown of those people is job-wise. For example, say Walmart has a photo studio. Are those people running it highly skilled photographers? Or are they some employee that is pulled aside and given an hour's instruction in how to work things there? In the former case, there might be an expectation of a decent income. In the latter case, the person is going to be fairly low paid, but still gets averaged in as a salaried "professional photographer".

I disagree about the 4 year degree...I know of a LOT more successful GOOD photographers without degrees than I know of successful GOOD photographers WITH photography degrees. I think the study would be better if it included people who've been "professional" photographers for >5 years. "Professional" photography gets a lot of people who are just passing through, playing at making money at it...but they eventually move on I think. Having had some experience with being in a "studio" (I shot kids team and individual pictures for a local company) I can tell you that the pay is NOT particularly good (and mine was better than most places I've heard of) the work was tedious and crappy, and any monkey could do it. I certainly hope that NOBODY in that situation would be included in the averages for "pro" photographers!