The photo business model basically collapses....

[Frank Petronio]

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/...m-has-arrived/

Read w whiskey

[Daniel_Buck]

it's not just photography, it's alot of areas right now. I know several people in different fields (who each have specialized skills) who have been layed off. I think I may be fortunate to be in the 'entertainment/movie' field, that usually does fairly well in low economic times (people who can't take a vacation or go out and buy something nice, may see a movie instead, to escape). However, we are feeling some heat too :-(

[Wayne Crider]

Interesting observation. You have to wonder just how much the photo equipment and supply sellers like B&H, Freestyle and Adorama are going to be hit as a result of a downturn. I am wondering how film and paper sales will fare. I've got a decent stock to work off of in the freezer so I won't be inclined to buy.

[QT Luong]

I tend to agree with the comment of Dan Heller in the blog. Vincent Laforet is writing about a certain categories of photographers who cater to publications. Not everybody will do that bad (at least I hope).

[eddie]

i am glad i am not relying on making all my money in photography.

my primary income is auto body repair. as long as we have insurance companies and teenage drivers we do fairly well. now that deer season has opened and ice is on the horizon (read road), we should pick up a bit more.

too bad about the photography thing as i was looking to try my hand in the field....i guess i will keep practicing

[Ed Richards]

Just to ice it, we are reading about this on a blog and not in a magazine.:-)

[Frank Petronio]

Truth is that I have a stack of un or way-under-read magazines and newspapers lying around unread because I can enjoy more interesting, shorter bits on the internet.

If you can get print work at all, most editorial jobs are often just a break-even proposition. The problem is that internet usage of your images is even worse -- we're talking low hundreds, unless it is for a major banner ad campaign. There is better stuff for free from people on Flickr than most commercial photographers can provide. It's a matter of numbers, if you give 1,000,000s of people decent cameras then you're bound to get a few amazing photos. If I were a photo editor I'd be inclined to turn towards something "real" (and cheap) from a "prosumer" than to stage a pro shoot with thousands of dollars spent on location, models, styling, etc.

There are always opportunities for creative retail portrait, wedding, and event photography. And some institutional jobs, especially for technical photography (Bio-med, etc...) But there may not be much else left for professional photographers to do than that, and many will end up being "prosumers" too. (Like me for instance.)

[Gordon Moat]

There is always advertising related work, and oddly enough that is what drives some magazine feature work. There are more titles than just ten years ago, but there are also other avenues to show images. Images need to be multi-use, for electronic and print.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1063...ding-by-medium

Some agencies think internet delivery is more meaningful and effect than broadcast, yet the production values, approaches, and expenses are largely the same. In fact, read through some industry tomes of advertising, and digital delivery is actually more expensive, despite that placement costs are cheaper for their clients. This is a bit upside down, and creates a myth about cheap assets.

Unfortunately, commercial stills ad shooters are largely tied to placement costs to develop fees. When placement costs drop, then there is pressure to reduce fees. This is a different world than editorial, and vastly different than the wedding and portrait crowd.

I disagree with the idea that Dirk Halsted started for photojournalists being applied to editorial shooters. I think that dilutes skills more than it creates new revenue streams. Obviously some will do well adopting video to their répertoire, but it is not as simple as simply picking up a video camera (or buying a D-SLR that does video). Motion imaging professionals are unlikely to be challenged by stills photographers, unless those converting stills photographers vastly undercut the veterans . . . and that leads to another mess.

There is definitely money out there for stills photographers. Competition is tough, and networking can get one further than talent, or equipment. While it is not bad to re-invent oneself, I see value in a focused approach, and sticking with what one does well. When the market changes, then add new markets, but build upon that core competency.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[David Carson]

What I am seeing from my perch as an art director in the marketing/ad world is that huge billions-of-dollars companies will only buy royalty-free images. Not good. Been this way for a couple years.

And as a 38 year old, I also see the trend of the end of advertising as we know it. People my age and younger simply don't read print and they dvr tv shows (skipping ads). I am one of the very few in my circle that subscribe to a newspaper. The ad world's saturation bombing campaign of years past worked too well, and people are switching off and tuning in to the net. There's plenty of free add-ons to browsers that kill all picture ads. Targeted text ads are the thing...lightweight, fast to load on mobile devices, and no photos.

The short while I worked as an assistant in the commerial photo world taught me that I wan't missing anything, and that the fun and control was in art direction.

I do wish a career in photojournalism would've panned out, but that field died to me long ago. Only the truly fanatic (and without kids or spouses) can make it in that world.

In short, wanting to thrive in the commerial or editorial markets requires surviving similar odds as a pro athlete. Ever seen "Hoop Dreams"?