 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 3
You must be reading different stats to me.Originally Posted by JM Tran
The vast majority of full time Australian photographers are earning well less than the national average annual wage.
I reckon there's only 3-4 in Tasmania who are in excess of the national average.
I dont know about you, but numbers means crap to me honestly, Im only going by my colleagues and associates I know in the business with me. Cant say any of us are eating bread and water nor are...poor....
The problem with those 'statistics' is that it takes into account idiots who call themselves 'full time' photographers and declare their tax with not all of their earnings declared, so what they earn officially on paper is a lot less than what they really earn, and should really be labeled as part timers or casual jobbers. Did you know that?
There are a lot of tax loopholes in the photography business.......and you know what they say about statistics......
Legitimately, stats will never be close to the truth. I really don't know anyone in the business that's not incorporated, a proprietary limited company. I work under three banners with photography and filmmaking and they're all listed statistically as investment companies. That's the ASIC code from where the statistics are derived.
Photojournalist | Filmmaker | Writer | National Geographic | Royal Geographic
D3x and other gear.
This applies to all self-employed people. Numbers are numbers and mean something if you use a little intelligence to interpret them. You guys might be the exceptions and are earnings heaps - that's great - but lets not confuse that with the crappy numbers, that really do mean something.
If you are talking about 'median' figures, remember that 50% are above the median value, and 50% under. JM Tran clearly associates with the upper 50% and not the lower 50%.
Regards, Rob
Photos: geeoverbar.smugmug.com Software: CS6, Lightroom 4
Yep, it's like acting. The top echelon earn squillions, but the median - well that's a different matter. But then again - the top echelon in photography don't earn squillions. At least, nobody has managed to come up with an example.
In that sense you're probably right, Steve. There aren't many photographers that work independently (sole trader) or specifically in the photographic business. All my friends, for instance, diversify, and have a range of occupations be it filmmaking, writing, publishing, whatever. It's the nature of good business. All that are left are the employees of major enterprises or government as I mentioned before.
The fact that photography is flourishing shows there's an opportunity. How you go about getting that opportunity is up to the individual, the same as any other business or occupation. The bottom line is diversification and there's a quid in it for those who try. You just need the right formula.
Agreed. There are opportunities everywhere. You just need to keep your eyes open to what people may be prepared to buy. A son of a friend of mine started taking videos of peoples Bar Mitzvah's (I had to look the spelling of that one up) and now he employs 3 people and makes a good living from it. Not something I would think of, but the opportunities are there. On the other hand, the guy that thinks he can make a living from photography just because he can take a good photograph, had better think again. Those days are gone.
yes its not easy being a one-trick pony these days is it?
Well, you can be, but not in photography.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
