Career Advice

[Redgum]

Geez! Redgum's been quiet.
I'm sorry but other than JM I don't think anyone has any idea what they're talking about here. Obviously, the picture you have of a "professional photographer" comes straight out of a glossy magazine. None of you have mentioned the multitude of photographic occupations that exist. What about cadet photographers for newspapers, for advertising agencies, the thousands of photographers that work in government. Sure, they may not be clicking away every hour with their camera, they may be doing mundane things like filing or presenting in court or creating indexes but they are professional photographers in every sense.
Think about it, a barrister spends say 5% of his/her time in court, but that's his/her job and they're still professional. Salary is not in question.
Killing that kids ambition is diabolical but fortunately he won't listen to advice from people that aren't there. Kids are too smart these days and they need to be.
Stats are stats and rarely give a true picture. There are probably thousands more but Packer, Murdoch and Ted Turner were all pro-photographers at one time or another. Just not the type you may have in your imagination. They all seem to appear in the rich lists.
Photography is not my first profession but I earn far more from that work than any of the lists in this thread indicate and I'm not over gifted creatively or academically.
Give the kid a go, give him encouragement, you never know, he may employ you one day. That's if you're not too old by then.

[kiwi]

I dont get what you arre saying. I would have thought the definition of a professional photographer is one that earns the majority of income from photography, not filing.

[JM Tran]

I dont get what you arre saying. I would have thought the definition of a professional photographer is one that earns the majority of income from photography, not filing.

well to be honest, yesterday's shoot for some L'oreal hair stuff was from 10AM till 5PM, the ACTUAL amount of shooting I did was probably an hour or less. The rest of the time was spent looking at the shots with the hairdresser, MUA and models, and setting the lights with the assistants, and a bit of driving around, packing up, waiting, oh and eating the free food provided

I dont do THAT much actual photo snapping in say, a 30 ish hour working week from photography, unless its a wedding day, but thats not a daily thing, thank god!

[kiwi]

Yeah, I get that, but you do all of that as the business side of being a photographer, but I don't see how this relates to 1000's of govt workers being employed as photographers ?

[Kym]

Govt worker - oxymoron?

[hoffy]

I think Redgum & JM has hit the nail on the head. The only thing I wouldn't be encouraging the young lad to do is stick with just sports photography. I think the most encouraging thing to do is to encourage the lad to broaden his photography and see how that goes. Maybe encourage him to speak with some papers and see if he can do work experience (if that still exists these days??).

There is only one way that he is going to find out if he has got it is for him to give it a shot.

[kiwi]

I'm sure also that sport photography is not a wise objective in isolation

General photography another matter

Even so, everything I've seen suggests that it's not exactly the best choice, if you are not 100% committed and talented, it's not a safe thing to study I suppose. Not everyone wants safe though

I do believe you can achieve anything if you are driven enough

I'm still not sure whether to recommend year 12's to study photography as a career is good advice in general

[Steve Axford]

There are probably thousands more but Packer, Murdoch and Ted Turner were all pro-photographers at one time or another.

Mmm. First I've heard of Murdoch ever being a pro-photographer. Strangely, it's not mentioned in Wiki, nor for Kerry Packer either. Both had very rich fathers so any involvement in photography would have been very fleeting and hardly something of note. Certainly not something about which you could say, "He started as a photographer and look where he is now!"

I haven't checked Ted Turner.

[JM Tran]

Mmm. First I've heard of Murdoch ever being a pro-photographer. Strangely, it's not mentioned in Wiki, nor for Kerry Packer either. Both had very rich fathers so any involvement in photography would have been very fleeting and hardly something of note. Certainly not something about which you could say, "He started as a photographer and look where he is now!"

I haven't checked Ted Turner.

Well Jacqui Kennedy/Onassis was a semi-pro photographer of some note before she met the Kennedy dynasty

I wouldnt have even guessed if I hadnt seen a doco on her life ages ago, and some sample photos from her portfolio too

[kiwi]

So was Dennis Hopper......but I still am missing the analogy with "he thousands of photographers that work in government. Sure, they may not be clicking away every hour with their camera, they may be doing mundane things like filing or presenting in court or creating indexes but they are professional photographers in every sense."

[Steve Axford]

Well Jacqui Kennedy/Onassis was a semi-pro photographer of some note before she met the Kennedy dynasty

I wouldnt have even guessed if I hadnt seen a doco on her life ages ago, and some sample photos from her portfolio too

If I was born with the wealth of Jacqi Bouvier, I could probably have been a semi-professional anything I liked, which is just my point. Naming the rich as having some involvement with photography at some stage of their lives proves absolutely nothing. Also, these guys are all quite old now and what they did when they left school is hardly of much relevance now.

[Longshots]

OK so back to the 'was this the correct advice ?"

In my opinion, as one who for the past 18 years has earnt his sole income from taking pictures for clients - ie in my personal view as a full time photographer; considering the state of the industry at the moment, then the answer in my opinion is yes.

Sure just about everyone would agree that you will probably need to entertain the concept of multi careers, that the option of a sole career is unlikely for photographers - which is what I did for the first 17 years of my photographic career. And I fully expect to have to go back to diversifying again.


Lets get back to the topic ? The point about which already fantastically wealthy past and present people, all of which were born into a good degree of wealth, was at some point a very competent or talented photographer, somehow confuses me as to the relevance to the OP's topic. Or how that demonstrates whether Darren gave good advice or not ?


Does that mean that the student shouldnt be given the chance to dream ? If given this honest and truthful advice ? Of course not. If that student wants something bad enough, they'll put in the hard yard and go out and make it happen. Will they be able to survive on their income from just photography though ? My sincere feeling is that unfortunately, they wont, regardless of the effort or talent put in to the task.

[bb45pz]

I think its interesting reading everyone comment on having to earn a certain amount of money from photography as a career. I think to a certain extent (and especially at that age) you get by on what you earn and if you aren't getting by with your photographic earnings then you take up a part time job to help pay the bills.

The issue comes later in life when you start to consider a change in career to what your passion may be but your commitments are then so much higher that the earnings from your desired career don't match what you currently are on. Its at this point that making a living out of photography becomes much more difficult.

Practical advice is to get him moving towards a sensible job like a trade or doing uni etc but this may lead him into the position that I (and many others) find ourselves in of being unable to go back and work as a photographer. However if he's been earning not much working as a photographer its much easier to then go and do a trade (in your late twenties perhaps) and go down another track.

Having said that, let him know what the projected earnings of some trades are vs photography. I'm in the fire industry and many of the guys in my team (just technicians) are on low 6 figures with very little stress and only a bit of overtime.

It'll come down to passion vs money and if the passion is that strong that he'll potentially give up 30-40grand a year then perhaps he'll succeed.

[Redgum]

So was Dennis Hopper......but I still am missing the analogy with "he thousands of photographers that work in government. Sure, they may not be clicking away every hour with their camera, they may be doing mundane things like filing or presenting in court or creating indexes but they are professional photographers in every sense."

G'day Kiwi, that's not an analogy but a fact. There are thousands of photographers working in government as photographers, just simply they don't take photographs all day as you imagine but have other tasks incorporated in their work.

[Redgum]

OK so back to the 'was this the correct advice ?"

In my opinion, as one who for the past 18 years has earnt his sole income from taking pictures for clients - ie in my personal view as a full time photographer; considering the state of the industry at the moment, then the answer in my opinion is yes.

Sure just about everyone would agree that you will probably need to entertain the concept of multi careers, that the option of a sole career is unlikely for photographers - which is what I did for the first 17 years of my photographic career. And I fully expect to have to go back to diversifying again.

William, that is the topic. This young person wants to give photography a go as a career. Sure, you may not be successful now or need to diversify but that shouldn't kill his ambition. You have been going for 18 years and that's a long time for a career these days.
The industry hasn't changed for the worse. I started in 1965 from a very poor position and what I earn from photography alone now will see me very comfortable for the rest of my life. I wish the same outcome on this young guy and would encourage him wholeheartedly to pursue his ambition.
Yes, diversification is the key to even greater success and no one should be reliant on one source of income if that's possible. For some it may be two or more careers paralleling each other and for others it will be two or more jobs. The days of a single lifetime career are well and truly over.
Go for it young fella and if it doesn't work you have a lifetime to take many other directions. William, your choice and my choice are limited by where we are (ageing) but don't let that hinder others.

[ricktas]

Lets get back to the topic ? The point about which already fantastically wealthy past and present people, all of which were born into a good degree of wealth, was at some point a very competent or talented photographer, somehow confuses me as to the relevance to the OP's topic.

Interesting to also note on this is that Jacqui, Ted, Packer and Murdoch did not remain pro-photographers for their entire lives. If photography for them was such a big part of their lives, one has to ask why they changed careers?

Yes it is good to encourage anyone, no matter what their age, to pursue their dreams, but you also have to be realistic and make sure they are informed. No use going into anything with Rose coloured glasses cause you will be left with a bitter taste in your mouth. Better to gather the facts and then decide if you still want to pursue it.

[Longshots]

William, that is the topic. This young person wants to give photography a go as a career. Sure, you may not be successful now or need to diversify but that shouldn't kill his ambition. You have been going for 18 years and that's a long time for a career these days.
The industry hasn't changed for the worse. I started in 1965 from a very poor position and what I earn from photography alone now will see me very comfortable for the rest of my life. I wish the same outcome on this young guy and would encourage him wholeheartedly to pursue his ambition.
Yes, diversification is the key to even greater success and no one should be reliant on one source of income if that's possible. For some it may be two or more careers paralleling each other and for others it will be two or more jobs. The days of a single lifetime career are well and truly over.
Go for it young fella and if it doesn't work you have a lifetime to take many other directions. William, your choice and my choice are limited by where we are (ageing) but don't let that hinder others.

This is the topic.

His father asked me whether a career as a sports photographer was feasible

Go back and read the OP question, because I have repeatedly gone back to it. To repeat, the original topic was about wether Darren gave someone the right advice or not.

I would definitely disagree with your comment that there is nothing wrong with the industry, much as I would like to agree with you, the industry has changed for the worse.

Whereas a few decades ago, you would see a large number of sports photographers all shooting for various different media, you now see relatively few. Thats the question I've been responding to. Not how much or how little can be earnt. Not which famous wealthy family member picked up a camera or not.


I posted various links to government and independent surveys that support the point of view that the industry is definitely in decline. I certainly dont want to hinder anyone, but think its reasonable to point out the current state of the industry as many of my peers, colleagues and gov bodies see it.


Darren went on to suggest just how many sports photographer there are that work for various media outlets, and the various independent shooters out there who survive full or even part time. Its a small number. So this has everything to do with "advice", and nothing to do with "encouragement". Its advice that was sought and an opinion on the validity of that advice based on the question of Sports Photography.

Yes its feasible, is it a good career choice, I believe Darren would actually be more suited than many here to make that call. And I'd agree with his very original question, which was

I'm not sure I did the right thing today, see what you think

So in my view that actually is the topic, and yes I think you did, and the variety of results, support that point of view.

[Redgum]

I would definitely disagree with your comment that there is nothing wrong with the industry, much as I would like to agree with you, the industry has changed for the worse.

Perhaps you need to change with the industry?

Whereas a few decades ago, you would see a large number of sports photographers all shooting for various different media, you now see relatively few.

I worked on the television coverage at Lang Park 20 years ago. Far more photographers there now than there was in those days. Mind you they're all gone in 30 minutes because that is the limit they have to file digitally. Just look at any of the major games on television - proof before your eyes.
William, the change you see is diversification. No longer can you stick to one genre, sports or even studio/product or news. You need to handle many of them. That's the information this kid needs and it may suit him right down to the ground. Don't be negative because his father only said "sports" which is probably an outcome of knowing Darren.
I get more work than I can handle because there is no experienced people willing to change their mould. Nothing wrong with the industry, just different. Photography/photojournalism is a wonderful career.

[Longshots]

Redgum - when did this become about me ?

Thanks for the advice though, but its unnecessary, and unwarranted.

We can agree to disagree on the original question though.


A little bit of checking and you will find that very few of them are paid to be there. Most are shooting on a spec basis and see if what they capture sells.

I really dont think I'm being negative though. Its just my opinion on the original question

[kiwi]

There were originally two questions, the first whether specifically sport photography was a career choice suitable for a year 12. Clearly not in any opinion I can find.

Secondly whether photography in general is, clearly opinions differ here a little.