Amateur vs Professional pricing issues

[Richard Fenner]

I've been thinking about this topic for a while, and a few posts in the last couple of months have discussed related issues, so I thought it a good time to raise the topic.

First, a clarification - I see no qualitative difference between amateur and professional, merely how they make their money. In the LF world, I have sometimes even hazarded a guess that amateurs are frequently producing better quality work (though lower in volume) than professionals, because they want to get things right and are less bound by practical considerations.

'Less bound by practical considerations' is an important point in this ramble.

I also don't have a great contact with the fine art world, or indeed with that many photographers, so keep that pinch of salt handy.

Stock photography is dying as an income to many individual photographers. Some photographers I know who make money from workshops, print sales, book sales, and stock, have seen a drastic decline in stock sales, and have started focussing more on workshops and print sales to make up for it. They wonder how friends in the travel photography business actually survive. The main cause seems to be saturation of the market, but a related cause is the increase in amateurs registering with online stock agencies. They don't care how much they get, just the thrill of being published. They might not put a lot of work online, but there's a lot of them. Doing a web search recently on a major online stock site, I was amazed at how many people I knew who were selling a couple of dozen shots.

In the fine art market, I've seen more people with 'normal', reasonably well-paying jobs, who buy nice equipment and enjoy spending their free time doing photography, decide it's time to get some print sales. Money isn't a factor - they don't need to feed themselves or cover equipment costs based on the sales (they would have bought the equipment anyway).They price in one of two ways: price low, to aim for maximum print sales; price high, because they consider their work as good as Gursky, Shore, Muench, Sexton et al. but maybe need to temper the price to reflect some degree of market reality. They don't care if they only get a few sales, if that. High price gives credibility.

I've seen people in the former group who price barely above material costs - paper and ink etc, not taking into account printers, enlargers, cameras, film etc. And those in the latter group who refuse reasonably generous offers for work, because it's clearly 'worth more than that', even if sales don't support their pricing.

I'm curious how others view the amateur vs professional divide, and whether they've come across odd situations, and how the future looks for the full-time professional. People 'undermining fellow photographers/the profession, by charging too low'. They show society the 'real worth' of work by charging highly.

This isn't really the same issue as grain dumping eg, because dumping is sometimes used as a tool to damage competition -the high and low pricers genuinely don't care about cost.
On the whole, I don't care if eg a professional wedding photographer with a family to feed (for added emotive value!) loses work to an amateur who does a few jobs just to cover film/printing and enjoy the publicity. Provided the amateur is doing good work and can demonstrate appropriate experience/backup, your other financial commitment simply price you out of the job.

I think this is more of an LF issue, because it seems the proportion of amateurs making a bit of money esp in fine art, increases as you go up the formats. I suspect some of the full-time pros will be priced out of the market, but I don't see that as a bad thing, just a change.

[Nick Morris]

Hello. I'm an amateur, so I can speak from that side of it. I do not agree that most amateur "fine art" photography is produced by photographers using LF, at least not where I live (Richmond Virginia). But I think that most, if not all amateur LF users think of themselves as fine art photographers, since more and more (if not all) professionals are turning to digital. I have sold a few prints from time to time, but do not really try to sell what I do. Mostly I give them away, or trade. I do try to follow art work developed in my area, and there are some exceptional artists in Richmond. However, most of the art work that I see, be it painting, photography, or whatever is produced by generally self taught amateur practitioners, and like what I do, is generally unexceptional. We do it because we love doing it; certainly not for the money. Professional photographers provide a service to those who need specific images. They invest in and have the photographic skill, the equipment, and most importantly, the business accumen to get the clients and make a profit. It is a competitive field, but I do not believe amateurs cut in to their business in any significant way. I believe there will be, if not always, for a long time to come, a need for professional image makers, and that there will be capable persons there to meet the need. I believe consistently getting high prices for "art" photography is tied to a degree of celebrity typically achieved through self-promotion, and crticial praise for exceptional work.

[Geert]

In Belgium, one of the 41 protected professions is photography.
That will forbid anyone from practising commercial photography without to proper education and license. So, don't worry about portrait, wedding and journalistic photography.

Fine art photography... anyone can call himself an artist, isn't it?

Greetings,

G

[Frank Petronio]

I notice that a lot of people's photos appear to be interchangable, especially the large format color nature photos that so many people on the forum do. And the more generic the works gets, the lower the price gets.

If you want to sell boring, generic photos for a lot of money, then you have to do some schtick. Maybe use an 9 x 16 aerial camera and hire a publicist to proclaim it to be the world's highest resolution camera? (like Clifford Ross). Or just make really large, technically perfect prints mounted on interesting materials (Burtinsky, Germans, etc.). Or stick a couple babies in the shot (Ann Gedes) or nude teenage girls (Mann, Sturges) or something to get attention.

I suspect that most commercial shooters who shoot large format landscapes and such do it for the love of it, and as a respite from the overly produced jobs they do for money. Some of the very best landscape photographers, IMHO, are the guys who do those exotic double page spreads for cars and liquor (like Duncan Sim (http://www.duncansim.com/)). Some of those jobs are $100K plus for esssential a good location scout, some retouching, and using a big camera in bad weather...

[Opton Oberkochen]

"Fine art photography... anyone can call himself an artist, isn't it?"

That's absolutely right Geert.

I'm not adverse to professional identity, however when the photography sucks, hiding behind an institution for credibility is hardly the answer. It gives the impression that Belgium is still the E.U. boys club trying desperately to forge an identity for itself. No matter how neurotic.

"I think this is more of an LF issue, because it seems the proportion of amateurs making a bit of money esp in fine art, increases as you go up the formats. I suspect some of the full-time pros will be priced out of the market, but I don't see that as a bad thing, just a change. "

Your conclusion is bound to be flawed because your premise is flawed. If the only difference between amateur and professional photography boils down to money, then you will have a hard time trying to see the wood for the trees.

Just because your best friend can get your teeth out by giving you a punch, would you call him a dentist? Your points aren't unreasonable for someone with no contact in the fine art market. What we do see a proliferation of is countless speculative posts by amateur photographers trying to blur the boundary in some quasi-fantasy that their work really might be up to professional standards.

Smile!

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, interesting thread. I do have a couple of comments to offer, the first of which is that I'm not sure if there's a a bright line between amateur and professional; in fact with a few exceptions (the really famous people) it's just about impossible to tell who is what. I know successful photographic artists who do commercial work on the side; others who have day jobs; lesser-known ones who are doing photography full time but living off a nest egg; and others who sell prints but support themselves with workshops, printing for others, and other means. There are just a few photographers out there who make a full-time living selling their prints, and not many these days make a full-time living selling stock images.

The model I have followed for awhile now is that to make a living as a photographic artist, you have to have many sources of income all coming in at once. A few bucks from prints sales, a few more from a book project, teach a workshop here and there, and so on. Income trickles in from all these sources, and just when one dries up, another one (hopefully) produces a check that keeps everything going for awhile longer. And many photographers who think of themselves as professional artists also supplement all of that with something else-- a part-time job that has nothing to do with photography, or they shoot weddings just for the money, or whatever.

For me the crucial factor was being willing to make a sacrifice in my material life in favor of doing what I love. If one is willing to let go of the cool car and drive a junker, and make a few other similar sacrifices, and of course devote one's self passionately to the work, then I think there's lots of reason to be optimistic about the future of photographic art as a profession. The number of successful photo galleries in cities all over the country has skyrocketed in the last few years. Photography is the artform of our time; it is being featured as the main event in all the biggest and most important art shows in the world now. Art magazines like ArtForum and Art In America have more photography than anything else nowadays. It's amazing.

One other thing that I frequently see, which is a career killer for a huge number of otherwise talented photographers, is the self-sabotaging failure to put the work out there. I know because I did it for years myself. I would come up with every excuse not to have shows, not send the work to galleries and magazines, and just stay home doing more photography. The whole game of putting the work out there is awfully scary-- it's like climbing out on a tree limb and handing someone the chainsaw. It's like taping your ego to your backside and handing someone a ruler and saying "spank." The work is sacred fo us, and yet we have to put it out there to be trashed or treated with indifference by people who we respect and admire. It's incredibly difficult.

If I had to say for myself what I see as the distinction between amateur and professional, it would have something to do with the kind of photography being practiced. If a person takes the risk of engaging with the current world and addressing a contemporary subject, then I think they have a far higher chance of succeeding in today's photographic art world than someone who is doing safer more traditional photography. I think the reason that many photographers are finding dead-ends in sales, or low market prices for their work, is because they are offering something that is already ubiquitious. It's kind of like being in a rock and roll band that only plays Beatles songs-- it's been done so many times that of course a band like that won't sell a million records and have sold-out concerts and get played on the radio. Do get those things requires taking a risk that many people aren't willing to take-- the risk of being original, saying something unique that might be controversial. I personally think of the professional photographic artist as someone who is taking that risk. Whether they make a full-time living or not is not so important; even if they have to supplement their income, they are fully committed, and that to me is what it means to be a professional artist.

Okay, now what was the question again?

[paulr]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, Richard.

There is one key difference between the art market and the commercial market, and that is what's being sold.

A commercial photographer is typically selling rights to use an image. An artist is typically selling a print, with no rights attached. There's probably no meaningful way to compare prices between these two worlds.

This is a bigger difference than professional/amateur ... it just so happens that most commercial photographers are professional (because why else would they be doing it?) and most artists are amateurs (if they new how to make a living at it, they would).

As far as artists selling work for barley more than the cost of materials, that's a new one to me. Maybe in the arts and crafts world where the practitioner is doing it just for fun. Most artists i know charge a bundle for the work, and even the ones that sell a lot need a day job and all the grant support they can beg for.

[Richard Fenner]

Paul, it was a bit of an incoherent ramble, I think.



I wasn't really trying to look at the commercial/non-commercial distinction, but rather, the different marketing and pricing routes being taken by those who have to make money from their photography, and those who don't have to. I think the latter are increasing in number, and rarely even have to cover their costs. It seems to me they're making decisions and adopting practices that a person who eats from their work (be it commercial or non-commercial) isn't in a position to make, and I'm curious about the effect of this. We've probably seen 'professional' wedding photographers lose work to amateurs (and these amateurs aren't always bad at it!); we've seen amateurs charging low costs for prints because they don't have to make up the cost of their equipment; I've seen amateurs (again, those who might be eg anaesthetists during the week) trying to sell their work for long periods, at very high prices and not selling, yet still insisting their work is worth it 'because it's as good as Gursky's' (they migh be correct - marketing and contacts mean a lot!) and not compromising.

[Ralph Barker]

Topics like this would be far more interesting with web cams and matter-transfer devices, so we could better simulate a friendly pub environment, and ask someone to pass the beer. ;-)

In my view, there are far too many variations in the "amateur vs. professional" spectrum, and far too many variations in approach to markets and marketing to arrive at useful general conclusions. Markets change over time, forcing changes in marketing in some cases, and forcing people out of the market in other cases. Those who adapt to these market changes succeed, those who don't find other means of supporting themselves. Add the fact that markets vary by geographic region, and even vary widely within any given region, and the issues become even more complex. Then, consider the fact that markets are affected by a variety of external factors, and it becomes even more difficult to arrive at useful general conclusions.

For example, it would be easy to say that the stock photography market has changed dramtically because of changes in the publishing and advertising markets. Both segments, the primary consumers of stock, have been looking for new ways to optimize their own profits due to shifts in their own realities, and what they are willing to pay for photography has changed as a result.

Thus, I'm not sure whether how the individual photographer classifies him/herself (i.e. amateur or professional) really matters. In some cases, the quality of the work might not even matter, but whether the pricing and marketing fits the demands or expectations of the market, the consumer of the work.

[Jan Van Hove]

Hey Geert,

Just a quick word to clarify something:

Photographer is not a protected profession anymore in Belgium... It was "liberated" on january 1st along with a bunch of others, in light of EU politics of free movement of workers within the EU...

So photographer, artist, whatever, in Belgium it now doesn't have a legal sense...

Cheers,

PJ

[paulr]

"We've probably seen 'professional' wedding photographers lose work to amateurs (and these amateurs aren't always bad at it!); we've seen amateurs charging low costs for prints because they don't have to make up the cost of their equipment; "

reminds me of a study i saw on neighborhood ecology. they found that house cats were significantly more effective hunters than the local owls and foxes and other predators, even though the cats were basically doing it for fun ... they had meals waiting at home.

there's no sense of fair play in the jungle--or the back yard! the more efficient hunter gets the prey.

If you're a full time pro, with all the shiny pro gear, and you can't find a way to be better and more efficient than joe hobbyist, then maybe it's time to consider a different line of work.

i know that if i were a client looking for a photographer for a job, it wouldn't matter at all to me how they pay their rent. i'd look at their book, at their prices, and at how i like dealing with them. the good news for pros is that they usually are better at commercial work. i'd hope they would be ... they do it all day long.

[Jim Rhoades]

Opton writes, "What we do see a proliferation of is countless speculative posts by amateur photographers trying to blur the boundary in some quasi-fantasy that their work really might be up to professional standards. "

Now I really like the magazine B&W (Collectors) but some of the portfoilos shown are fuzzy, foggy and pointless. Then I read that the "Artist" wants $450. for a crappy print. Sorry, no quasi-fantasy here. I know craftmanship when I see it and when I don't.

I subscribed for many years to Aperture. It was filled with cross processed color prints of do your own thing dismembered body parts reported to be "art". Bullshit, it's new wave shock jock photography. Taught in college as art to students with no background in craft.

Steve sold Camera Arts. Now it has professional proof reading and ugly prints as they attempt to be a new Aperture. I did not subscribe this year.

I think it comes down to the age old question of craft vs. art. Which comes first? Can art exist without craft? Not for me it can't.

[tim atherton]

"I think it comes down to the age old question of craft vs. art. Which comes first? Can art exist without craft? Not for me it can't."

though craft without art is usually just fancy decor - doilies and antimacassars - to match your sofa

[Richard Boulware]

Richard Fenner's lead post on this thread is most interesting and I feel the need to respond as I have detected another common thread that I think needs to be addressed.

The secondary common threat is one that I feel most posters have little knowledge of, and I would like to respond as one who has, ' been there-done that.'

While Mr. Fenner's commentary on seeing ..."no qualitative difference between amateur and professional" ....is interesting, I feel (respectfully) it is incorrect, most likely because Mr. Fenner is not knowledgeable of the area of professional photography and this unique area of commercial photography where most of the money changes hands.

While it is true that the basic difference between amateur and professional is the percent of income derived from photography, there are more subtle differences that must be recognized.

My particular area of photography is advertising and editorial photography which has been my home for many decades. Shooting magazine ads and annual reports or magazine stories. While there are hundreds of professionals in photography in my own metro area, only about six of us controlled 80% of the total dollars spend for what one could call photography. By total dollars for photography, I lump into this group, portrait, wedding and similar practitioners. I and my five major competitors shot for accounts that would spend a quarter of a million dollars just for the ad space in national magazines, and thought nothing of hiring a skilled professional that would charge a day rate of $1000 or $2000 a day, plus all expenses for the job. Costs for a good shooter are a tiny portion of the total costs of an ad campaign, and six of us shooting major national ads and annual reports chewed up a large amount of total dollars spent for photography in this area.

I should be candid here and admit that I learned more about my own metro area photographic budgets, AFTER I left my studio (to raise a son and daughter) and then started to look back with some measure of surprise. Hind sight is so great, and often surprising.

My basic measure of my kind of professionalism is simply this: Producing quality photographic imagery, anywhere, anytime, upon demand.
It doesn't matter if you are sick, disabled (within reason), are having a bad-hair day or whatever.
When you accept the assignment, you have entered into a contract with the art-director or an editor, and if you blow it,...you will never get another job or assignment from them. Kiss your career goodbye.

The competition is incredible and you have to produce on demand. My business is one where your years of investment in education and/or experience is on the line. We have a saying in our world: "You're only as good as your last assignment"! Few amateurs can handle this kind of pressure day in and day out. It's just a different world.

I left more conventional areas of professional photography to specialize in my field, because that is where the money was (is).

I really encourage part time shooters (non-professionals) to take some time and make a friend of someone who is in my field, to see and learn about the world of others in photography. I'll bet it will expand your horizons, and give you valuable information that will be another skill or tool, in your tool kit the next time you decide to take a weekend off and make images...just for the fun of it.

Soon, I will be posting my second page of my "Photographers Notebook" series, and I will begin to share some images and a narrative on how the assignment came to be, the production problems and details, and the satisfaction of opening the new edition of TIME, and seeing your ad shot as a double-truck ( full two page spread). Few things in life, to me, are as satisfying..(and knowing that I deposited my check into my bank account three weeks ago is the icing on the cake)

Wishing you all...."Fresh eyes".........

Your friend, Richard.

[paulr]

Jim, are you looking at craft for the sake of craft, or craft as a means of realizing a particular vision?

if you're looking for the former, then the issue has nothing to do with art. it's about connoisseurship of pretty things, and could just as easily be about figurines or doillies and antimacassars to match your sofa.

if you're looking at the latter, then you need to get away from holding craftsmanship to some pre-conceived standards. the relevent question is "does the way this object was made sever the vision behind it?" what best serves that vision may be a classically crafted platinum print, or it may be newpaper photographs pasted to the side of a cow. without an attempt to see the work on its own terms, you're not even in a place to judge the suitability of its craftsmanship.

[Jim Rhoades]

Paulr, No I hope I'm not looking at craft for (or as) the sake of craft. I have seen beautiful 2 1/4 Pt. prints made from a Holga. There was art, craft and vision in those tiny slighty blurry photographs. The base of this thread goes back to the large color print of a fuzzy leaf selling for $3,700. I feel Brooks' was right about the high priced prints and wrong about going as low as $20.

But back to craft vs art. I would tend to ask the question as, "Does the lack of craft sever the vision behind it?" In many cases my answer is yes. My money says that I am indeed in the place to judge the suitability of its craftsmanship. I buy or I don't, that was Brooks' point. My point is that I've seen a lot of prints that I wish I could buy for $250. But I will never buy at $1,000. I also see a lot of overpriced junk at $450. that I would not pay $20. for.

When a magazine prints 2500 words by a art critic with a MA after his name using lofty language to justify a photograph being "art", I know I'm being scammed.

[jonathan smith]

--------------------On the whole, I don't care if eg a professional wedding photographer with a family to feed (for added emotive value!) loses work to an amateur who does a few jobs just to cover film/printing and enjoy the publicity-------------------

I agree with this, I'm sick of hearing about "I need to feed my family" as if that means everyone else should pack up and get out of the way. It sounds like whining to me. Just because someone can click a shutter doesn't mean they deserve to earn a living for themselves and 14 kids with it. If it sells, it sells. No one should buy a lousy photo just because some kids are hungry.

If you want to feed your family, get a job at Ford (oops!) , or go on foodstamps.

I was listening to a music composer whine that he got so little money from composing, he "couldn't feed his family". Well, write music good enough, sell it right, and you could feed dozens of families. Spin your wheels, spend your time feeling sorry for yourself, and see what you get.

[paulr]

""Does the lack of craft sever the vision behind it?" In many cases my answer is yes."

but what does "lack of craft" mean?

craft is what was required to make the phyiscal object that you're looking at. there was obviously enough craft to make the object, so what you're calling lack of craft is actually a value judgement placed on the craftsmanship. my point is that this value judgement can only be made within the context of trying to understand the underlying vision of the work.

a beautiful print that meets the standards of a print fetishist might utterly fail the vision of a down-in-the trenches street photographer from the 1960s--which is why the gritty, sooty newpaper print quality became an esthetic back then. In the same way a gritty, sooty print would utterly fail one of Stieglitz's pictures of O'keefe's hands, which were about as much about formal sensuality as they were about portraiture.

[Jim Rhoades]

Sorry paulr. Your engaging in esoteric photographic bullshit. Of which you wrote about three pages down. Protest denined.

[Oren Grad]

there was obviously enough craft to make the object, so what you're calling lack of craft is actually a value judgement placed on the craftsmanship. my point is that this value judgement can only be made within the context of trying to understand the underlying vision of the work.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a lack of craft really is a lack of craft, even allowing for the creator's intent.

[Henry Ambrose]

Richard,

I think an important difference between "art photography" and "commercial photography" in terms of your post is that the "art print" is an object and the "commercial photo" is a service. An art object seems to be valued aesthetically and as an investment - some combination of these anyway. A hobbiest can easily move into selling some work if someone thinks it is good enough to buy. If it would "look nice over the sofa", (or "we should have that in our collection") that just might make the sale. Anyway the customer is buying a thing or object.

Commercial work is more of a "service" that at the lowest levels is not a lot different from paying to have your lawn cut, garbage hauled or leaves raked. Moving up the ladder, some commercial work might be equivalent to plumbing, auto repair, dentistry, requiring higher levels of skill, esthetics and knowledge on the part of the photographer. At its highest and best paid levels the commercial photography "service" approaches/assumes a postion of art. But the customers (at this point art directors, agencies and their clients) are still going to hire based on the apparent ability of the photographer to deliver the service they want. That service is a picture that sells bazillions of whatever it is they are selling.

At its base level there might not be that much difference between commercial photography and garbage hauling. Hauling garbage is not fun, cool or a pleasant hobby -- its just work and no one wants to haul your garbage for free. But photography is a fun, cool and pleasant hobby and people WILL do it for free or cheap.

The ability to deliver is underestimated by the unsophisticated client and is often completely overlooked when the price is low enough. There are plenty of photographers in the world scratching for a living. If a buyer has low standards and lots of vendors to choose from, prices will be held low.

I can not prove the amount of commodity photography thats been lost to improvements in technology but it is significant. Lots of the old bread and butter work is now easily done by a secretary with a digital camera. Perhaps not as well as it might have been done by a professional but its gets done and its cheap. Anyone who depended on this kind of work for a living is out of luck these days.

Anyway thats my rambling, semi-coherent take on the subject.

[paulr]

"Sorry paulr. Your engaging in esoteric photographic bullshit. Of which you wrote about three pages down"

actually i was making a simple observation that's been made by others before me. tell me what part of it wasn't clear.

[Richard Boulware]

My congratulations to Henry Ambrose for a well written example of the differences between a photographic amateur and a professional. Bulls eye. I agree generally with all you say, with just a few caveats.

The service professionals provide is a service, but it does provide a product. That product is not the end result to hang over a sofa, but part of the total advertising matrix, that will include copy and printing of the finished ad in some publication. The product we provide is a ultra high quality photographic image which is the foundation building block for the ad. Photographers in my field are often referred to as....graphic problem solvers.

In pricing, the greater the end cost for the ad, the greater the skill to be purchased to make the graphic image, the greater the cost to the client, and fee necessary to buy that photographic skill.

Also in proportion is the degree of perfectionism with the art director or the editor. The more expensive the ad the more 'picky' the art director or editor will be. Some can be absolute monsters to deal with...but that is the highly competitive nature of my field.

In general, Henry Ambrose nailed the very basic difference between amateurs and professionals, although the professional side of his post is a little over simplified. None the less, well done, Henry.

Fresh Eyes.....Richard.

[tim atherton]

Of course, so much depends on what type or area of photography we are talking about. - Even within "Commercial Photography" there are big differences - Editorial/Ad photography is somewhat different to architectural photography in certain areas, both can be different from photojournalism and are obviously very different again from art photography and the work of a professional Scenes of Crime (SOCO) photographer

That said, sometimes a better distinction would be between professional and hobbyist.

Amateur would, in many ways, a word that should be allowed to revert to one of it's more widely accepted, if older, definitions.

After all, much of history's best and most creative photography has been produced by "amateur photographers"

[paulr]

also: it might be more important to distinguish between professional and amateur photographs than professional and amateur photographers. A lot of photographers are both. Many great historical photographs were taken by professional photographers, but were done as personal work on the side. Ansel Adams and Paul Strand come to mind, as does Henri Cartier Bresson and just about everyone else at Magnum. Only a small fraction of great or historically important photographs has been produced by pros while on assignment.

Remember that "Amateur" is the French word for lover. Depending on the context, "Professional" has connotations of prostitution, in every language.

[robert_4927]

I think a good example of "Amateur" Would be the golfing great Bobby Jones. Look at all the majors he won for "the love of the game" never giving up his amateur status. There were a lot of pros in the field that couldn't come close to measuring up to Mr. Jones.

[Richard Boulware]

There is a bit of 'myth' starting in this thread that needs to be corrected. Some of the most historically important photography ever done has been reflected in the Pulitzer competition.

One of the most memorable photographs is Joe Rosenthal's shot of the flag raising on Iwo Jima.
Joe was a professional, in the employ of Associated Press. Pulitzer 1945.

Eddie Adams ( friend) won the 1969 Pulitzer for his shot of Vietnam Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, executing a prisoner on the streets of Saigon. He was an Associated Press photographer.

The list is endless and 99% of Pulitzer shots, important to history, were made my salaried photographers.

As for Magnum, ...the organization was formed by Capa, Chim Seymour, Bresson and others in 1947 to control the copyright and usage (read financial reward) of their work, and they were all assignment professionals. Magnum was a Photo Agency - For Profit. Magnum was a business venture, not a hobby.

Even the famous work of the Farm Security Administration photographers, in the 'Dust Bowl Era' reflect the great art of photographers..... on a salary.

Professional is NOT a dirty word. Quite the contrary.

[Richard Fenner]

I was inclined to let this run its course, as the first post wasn't sufficiently clearly worded to get the conversation going that I wanted. But I've decided to try again, just in case there were some misunderstandings.

This is not an art photography vs commercial photography issue to me; I'm not interested in a person's qualifications or trade affiliations or any other restrictive (but sometimes of benefit to the public) practices employed. I wasn't trying to suggest a difference in skill level or attitude or responsibilities between amateur and professional - merely their motivations and demands arising therefrom. I suppose it comes down to: is the rise in photographers (typically fine-art, occasionally commercial esp weddings for example) who don't need to earn a crust from their work, affecting the working practices of those who do need to work at their photography to earn a living. I've heard that in stock photography, in wedding photography, and sometimes in architectural, people have complained about these 'hobbyists' (usually used in a derogatory tone), for whom the money made is less significant, 'undermining the profession' - ie the ability ofthe full-timer to charge enough to make a decent full-time living from their work.

I see proportionately more LF photographers trying to make a few bucks from their photography than in the smaller formats, so thought some people here might have experienced it. Are there amateur (ie hobbyist/non-full-timers etc) photographers who seem to be bucking the normal trend in offering their services/goods? Are they charging more than a new fine-art photographer really should tolive off their work, on the basis perhaps that they don't care if they don't get 'enough' sales, it's just a hobby to them - and likewise, have there been 'hobbyist' architectural photographers who've charged under the market rate just to do a job, resulting in a full-timer losing the work?

[tim atherton]

One of the best portraitists of all time was Julia Margaret Cameron.

One of the most extensive documentary projects ever undertaken was carried out by a photographer - August Sander - was pretty much done as a side "hobby" from his commercial work

William Eggleston - considered by many as setting the groundwork for much contemporary colour work is basically an "amateur" who has funded much of his work from his inheritance.

The highly influential work of Lartigue was done almost before he was old enough to hold down a job

The wonderful work of Blossfeldt was really a sideline to his dayjob

Gary Winogrands very influential work was nearly all produced "for himself" and not for the clients he worked for producing commercial work - that work having faded into oblivion, wile his personal "amateur" work (as it were) remains one of the important canons of photography of the last 50 years.

And of course the inventor of photography - Fox Talbot, whose first images still stand on their own - was also very much an amateur.

And many more - in fact there is a strong tradition of photographers supporting what they considered their real work(and are usually remembered for) with commercial photography of one sort or another - in that sense, they were very much amateurs in the true meaning of the word Evans, Winogrand (above), Kertesz, Bravo (he was an accountant and cinematographer among other things) - even Weston to some exent. The work wasn't produced as an assignment or for a client, but for the photographer. That some (though not all) also earned a livign at some form or other of commercial photography (Evans did museum photography at one point) is immaterial.

Call them professionals if you wish, but the designation comes form the enduring quality of their work - not that it was produced for a client.

The Pulitzer recognises perhaps some of the most newsworthy photographs, but it's also a fairly limited field as well - despite some historically important photographs

[Henry Ambrose]

Richard Fenner,

Go back and read the last full paragraph of my first post. That is a start to answering the questions you've added into the mix. But its not neccessarily hobbiest photographers who might drive the price of work down or otherwise compete with professionals.

I know I miss jobs from time to time as a result of low-balling professionals. If its a small or not so important building or project the client may be happy enough with some so-so DSLR pictures of the building. If the guy who's calling on them happens to hit at the right time and will do it for 1/2 or 2/3s of what I would charge then he might get the work. Again this is if it is NOT an important job. When they want something better the other guy loses out. Of course if its a really really great project I probably lose out to H&B or some other out-of-town shooter. Or don't even get asked. Or sometimes I might get something they bid - I suppose then they talk about me - "that lowball local guy."
; >)

So, we're all part of the food chain. The guys who complain about hobbiest or amatuer shooters stealing their work are probably just a notch above the guys they are complaining about. Photographers who are well up the chain do not lose to guys who do it for a hobby. A $500 wedding shooter will lose to the bride's cousin who can do it for free. That same cousin doesn't get asked to shoot the GM Annual Report or an advertising campaign with media placement of six figures.

Richard Boulware,

I did over simplify. Probably has something to do with the long term fate of most of the commercial work I've done. It gets used and then its thrown away. Its done it's job, they've sold loads of widgets and off to sell the next one. I very much prefer making a nice print of someones creative architecture work, delivering that to them and then seeing it on their wall knowing it will be there for a long time. I like being able to deliver my work as prints. It completes the process for me in a way that burning a CD or FTPing just doesn't do.

So prints of things and people that are valued and appreciated for a while (longer than until the next catalog is in production) by the recepient are really my preference. And that opportunity has become rare in professional photography. But I digress from Richard Fenner's questions.

[robert_4927]

Richard, Please don't misunderstand me. Some of the greatest photographs I've ever seen have been made by photojournalist. The photos you just mentioned all had a compelling impact on society and most certainly helped define an era. And a pultizer is nothing to sneeze at. But I will disagree with the tone that's seeming to exude here, to place a "professional photographer" in another class as far as artistic ability or skill. Anyone who has sold a single print can no longer actually claim to be an amateur. Whether or not your working to a deadline for a wedding or a 5th Avenue advertising firm it is still a deadline and that is all it is. Now if you wanna measure it in dollar success I'm sure you will agree that a lot of luck and some good marketing will help anyone build a reputation/career and that's commendable in it's own right. But to use the title of "professional" as though it places ones skills above that of an amateur is simply untrue. Keep in mind the term amateur means one who does it for the love of it. I've seen countless times local photojournalists piss and moan about their assignment. Do they get the shot and make the deadline? Of course they do. Does that make them any more talented or at a higher level than the amateur who has been working all day on a composition? Because he's doing it for the love of it? Quite the contrary. I guess I just have a problem with someone using the term"amateur" to define someone of not being on the same level of skill as they. It just seems somewhat demeaning and unnecessary. Now this well may be acceptable and the norm in the world of million dollar ad campaigns . If that is such the case then you can chalk my response up to just not knowing. I've never worked in that field. I would much rather just use the term photographer and let the work speak for itself.

[QT Luong]

Rather than the professional/amateur divide, I see as a more relevant divide that between two categories of photographers: those who photograph what they personally find interesting,
those who photograph what they are asked to by a client (certainly trying to make it look interesting).



As pointed out by Richard and Henry, in the second category, what matters the most is a track record of delivering, and no price pressure is going to change that except for some low-end jobs.



In the first category, that includes a significant part of stock (but not all, as agencies often dictate specific subjects or styles) and all fine art, oversupply has and will continue to erode some people's ability to make a living the way they have done before. However, when it comes down to signing up with the more lucrative stock agencies, or getting into the gallery/museum circuit (key to higher prices), a track record still matters.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"One of the most memorable photographs is Joe Rosenthal's shot of the flag raising on Iwo Jima. Joe was a professional, in the employ of Associated Press. Pulitzer 1945."

An associate of mine was a photographers mate in the Navy during WWII and actually worked in the lab that processed Rosenthal's work. He showed me a stack of prints awhile back that had at least a handful of "alternate" exposures of that very scene. Eerie!

Just an interesting side note, having little to do with the original question, but I just couldn't resist.

[Nick Morris]

Richard,
I looked at your more recent post with the emphasis on pricing, and the impact of those relying less on photo income. I said in my earlier post that I did not believe amateurs significantly cut into the market. That statement assumes to a degree that the client using the amateur did not value the service enough to pay what a professional would require. In other words, if the amateur hadn't agreed to do it for the low price, the client would have done it himself. I have done some of those "assignments" in the past. It also assumes that you are not considering "amateurs" who are trying to break in to professional photography, and ultimately fail to make it. All industries have a failure factor. I work in the real estate industry. When I worked as an agent-broker, this same issue was discussed. It is relatively easy to become licensed as an agent, and many people get licensed, selling one or two properties a year, if that. Do they cut into the business? Would it be better for those who work full-time and rely on their sales for a living if these part timers were not in the business. Of course they do, and it would be better if the part timers weren't cutting into the sales. But still, 90% of the sales are made by 10% of the agents, as the saying goes, so those who employ good business practices succeed. I think the situation is the same in the photography business. And those with exceptional photographic and business skills become rich and famous.

[Richard Boulware]

This thread is introducing some thoughts about the differences between hobbyists and full time photographer 'pro's'...that I had not intended, but are still very interesting.

One of the thoughts in this thread that irritated me the most was the idea that a hobbyists 'amateur' was much more passionately involved with the art and craft of photography than the professional. Yes, I admit my bias here because I am passionate about photography and will forever be a student of photography. I am forever learning and experimenting about composition, theme in work, and how the human eye and mind see and are influenced my images. My bias is borne by the knowledge that most of my competitors have always felt the same way.

I recall so very well the time, early in my career, when in my senior year at Art Center, I was awarded the single student scholarship to attend the national meeting of ASMP (American Society of Magazine Photographers) at the Asilomar, CA retreat site near Carmel and Monterey.
You had to be an ASMP member to get in. It was a Who's Who of powerful people in photography and the year was 1959 I think.

There were about two hundred there, and it was a 'mind blowing' experience. The first night we all sat a circular tables that sat six or eight folks for dinner.. At my table were Ernst Haas, Philippe Halsman, and Dorothea Lange, then very elderly. Early in the dinner Ms. Lange asked me directly..."Richard,..why are you in photography". I was stunned at a direct question to me and stuttered.....I,...errr,...I guess it's because I find people interesting! She loudly shot back..."YOU'RE A LIAR"! I was stunned and the moment only broken when Halsman spoke up and said..." HEY Dorothea...give this guest a break. I've heard good things about this young man."
The incident was over, but forever emblazoned in my mind. Ms. Lange was very senile at the time and had one of the great ego's of the wold. Lucky for me...Halsman shut her down, and she behaved for the rest of the meal.

I got off topic a little but the ASMP conference was symbolic of what I have experienced in my career in terms of the passion by other photographers. When we met in the great hall to hear speakers and presentations, one of the last speakers, on the last day, was Herbert Kepler, then the editor of Popular Photography Magazine. who started to talk about cameras and lenses. He was literally booed off the stage by famous photographers standing up and yelling something like...."We don't want to hear about damned cameras, we want to talk about art, and meaning, and how we communicate to our audience and share images and ideas"!

I don't want to start a debate about which group has more passion, but I have come to know over many years, that successful and famous photographers earned that status by having a passion for their chosen profession.

Let's just stipulate that amateurs and professionals most likely are equally passionate about photography.

Forever a student, albeit a senior citizen/photographer.

Richard.