Who earns their livelihood photographing?

[Dan Cripps]

The poll results explain the general attitude and vibe around here.

[Steve Axford]

I'd agree with that Zeke. Sometimes people here can kid themselves, but most of us a a bunch of amateurs who just like photography as a hobby. Taking good pictures is the main thing. If you are pro, taking good pictures must be secondary to keeping the customers satisfied.

[kiwi]

I'm a part-timer

It's my soul income

[Kym]

I wonder what other interests have such a divide between hobbyists, PT income and FT income?

• Taxi drivers? No
• Software development? No
• Musicians? No
• Cooking? No
• Artists (painting)? No

So what's different about photography? It seems to be uniquely affected by easy access to technology.

[kiwi]

I wonder what other interests have such a divide between hobbyists, PT income and FT income?

• Taxi drivers? No
• Software development? No
• Musicians? No
• Cooking? No
• Artists (painting)? No

So what's different about photography? It seems to be uniquely affected by easy access to technology.

Sex workers ?
I think musos must be close

[Scotty72]

I wonder what other interests have such a divide between hobbyists, PT income and FT income?

• Taxi drivers? No
• Software development? No
• Musicians? No
• Cooking? No
• Artists (painting)? No

So what's different about photography? It seems to be uniquely affected by easy access to technology.

You are kidding, right?

Musicians are probably far MORE affected. Heaps get paid bugger all, they often need to supply their own expensive equipment and are constantly exploited by band comps (up to Australian Idle) who expect them to provide free entertainment, sign over their rights while the organizers of comps rake it in.

Being an ex cabbie, I know how little they make - they hand over the pay-in the pray they make enough to cover that and fuel before they make a cent.

Most cooks get paid nothing! Bizzare eg.

Scotty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kym]

@Scotty, Don't disagree, but you missed my point... I have muso friends who do low paid gigs and they don't bemoan the successful bands/artists.
It seems in photography there is some sort of acrimonious feeling.

[Dan Cripps]

It seems in photography there is some sort of acrimonious feeling.

I dare say it happens in all unregulated professions.

That is a very real issue in our industry.

What constitutes a professional? Anyone who declares themselves as such.

[mikew09]

Hmm, I voted pop corn, made a little cash of late but I'm still far to much in the amatuer class to make more serious money :-).
Not in it for money really but would be nice to make enough to cover the gear cost of my most loved interest.

[Gremlin]

I used to be involved with signmaking and that had a similar effect. I had top quality gear and high quality materials. Then there was the ppl with cheap vinyls and cutting gear that started to flood the market, all it took was a program ie coreldraw illustrator or the generic cutters program and some cheap quality vinyl and ppl were doing signs vehicle signs and charging ridiculous low prices for it. Quality was awful but the price buyers loved it. I stayed with using higher quality materials, using higher quality machines and proper cust service to install them. Two things ended me doing that. An influx of diyers not charging to sustain a business, most doing for pocket money, and a lung collapse that almost killed me. Once on my feet again, there was a I hate ot say influx of cheap operators producing cheap graphics. Even thou I had a superior product in terms of longevity and quality, I couldnt compete with the lowballers doing it to get the job and barely cover costs. My business model was around what I needed to run the business, phones, ute, materials, repl gear, computers, redundant systems staff/assistant hire, insurance, workcover, which none of the lowballers did. I ended up going back to my trade in another industry. Strangely enough after 3-4 months being unable to work, and still up to two years after I sold it, I was still getting calls, sorry we went with a cheaper guy his stuff was awful, can you come fix it and do it properly? By that time I had moved on....
So within that industry yeah I might call myself a professional, I know I had professional service and product and until the collapse had a sustainable business that kept me going, that was until I wasnt able to work.

Funny thing is the income protection insurance meeting was the wednesday AFTER I was ambulanced to hospital, damn timing!!!!

I think I made sense there....

[Steve Axford]

I dare say it happens in all unregulated professions.

That is a very real issue in our industry.

What constitutes a professional? Anyone who declares themselves as such.

You are right - a professional is anyone who says he is. What other measure would you use? And how would you persuade others to use your measure?

I don't think it does happen in all unregulated industries. I think the difference is that photography used to be just the few (who could get the training and equipment) and now it is for everybody. It is that change that makes the difference. The old time pro is either losing business or having to reinvent himself. For musicians it has always been the same, so they don't complain in the same way.

p.s. I just read Gremlin's post, so maybe it does happen in other industries. Even so, there's little you can do about it, so you have to focus on what you can do about you.

[Dan Cripps]

You are right - a professional is anyone who says he is. What other measure would you use? And how would you persuade others to use your measure?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I would like to see some form of regulation. A governing body which issues licenses (like many trades and professions) and is empowered to assess (over a whole gamut of areas) who qualifies as a professional.

I don't think it does happen in all unregulated industries.

I think you'd be surprised.

I think the difference is that photography used to be just the few (who could get the training and equipment) and now it is for everybody. It is that change that makes the difference. The old time pro is either losing business or having to reinvent himself. For musicians it has always been the same, so they don't complain in the same way.

I honestly don't think that is at all true, to be honest. Photography has always had massive appeal and involvement, be it of commercial or leisure nature. I think the difference in the last 10 years has been the increase in number of people who are not content to operate their cameras within the scope of what once was a hobby.

p.s. I just read Gremlin's post, so maybe it does happen in other industries. Even so, there's little you can do about it, so you have to focus on what you can do about you.

I have never subscribed to the attitude that big, difficult tasks are better ignored.

[kiwi]

Zeke, AIPP is at the moment the closest consumer brand stamp of being a professional....in that there are qualification factors (such as being FT) and there is peer review, branding, code of ethics etc. Im not sure you can really regulate quality in an artistic endeavour.

[Dan Cripps]

Zeke, AIPP is at the moment the closest consumer brand stamp of being a professional....in that there are qualification factors (such as being FT) and there is peer review, branding, code of ethics etc. Im not sure you can really regulate quality in an artistic endeavour.

Yes, I'm a full accredited member.

There are many aspects of the business which could (and should) be regulated.

[farmer_rob]

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I would like to see some form of regulation. A governing body which issues licenses (like many trades and professions) and is empowered to assess (over a whole gamut of areas) who qualifies as a professional...

Photography for the general public is a discretionary purchase and people aren't going to get physically hurt if it fails. I can't see government getting worked up enough to set up some form of licence system (such as exists for plumbers/builders etc.) and the state consumer affairs bodies already have sufficient power to manage the ripoff merchants (of which there are some in every field of business).

Other unregulated professions have managed to lever themselves up to have reasonable representative bodies for which membership is seen as a badge of professionalism/quality. But this needs to come from within the membership bodies in the profession, setting standards and marketing membership as meaningful. Expecting it to either come by government fiat or even public demand is just fantasy IMO.

...
I honestly don't think that is at all true, to be honest. Photography has always had massive appeal and involvement, be it of commercial or leisure nature. I think the difference in the last 10 years has been the increase in number of people who are not content to operate their cameras within the scope of what once was a hobby.
...

Don't underestimate the ease of doing things with photography that in the past were in the realm of specialist activity (ie the film era): Cropping, enlarging, printing, special effects etc. As well, the price of quality camera gear is lower in real terms, and more widely available. I've been a hobbyist photographer for 30+ years, but only in the past few years have I been able to do things like crop and enlarge my photos because I no longer need a darkroom and specialist skills.

[Steve Axford]

Zeke, I don't think that government is going to get involved in regulating an industry that has little in the way of danger to the public. Even things like counselling is essentially unregulated with anyone able to put up a board and call themselves a counselor. Things like medicine and law are regulated for obvious reasons, but give me one good reason why photography should be?

[Dan Cripps]

I don't think the art photography should ever be regulated.

Don't get me wrong.

I simply believe that the title of 'professional' should not be as easily accessed or utilised. As I said earlier, I don't have any real answers, just sharing my viewpoint.

[Redgum]

Zeke, I don't think that government is going to get involved in regulating an industry that has little in the way of danger to the public. Even things like counselling is essentially unregulated with anyone able to put up a board and call themselves a counselor. Things like medicine and law are regulated for obvious reasons, but give me one good reason why photography should be?

You're right Steve, I know first hand that the federal government won't regulate any industry without first being nailed to a post and why should they? Regulation costs lots of money to do and significantly increases prices to the end user and generally is a disaster for everyone. Free marketing sorts itself out pretty quickly and as long as it's not a danger to individuals should be left that way. Most professional bodies (as far as regulation is concerned) are leeches.

[Steve Axford]

Yep, RG, less regulation has been the trend ever since the trade guilds became all powerful back in the 17th century. (What is the world coming to when I find myself agreeing with RG all the time ) To quote Wikipedia "Despite its advantages for agricultural and artisan producers, the guild became a target of much criticism towards the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1800s. They were believed to oppose free trade and hinder technological innovation, technology transfer and business development. According to several accounts of this time, guilds became increasingly involved in simple territorial struggles against each other and against free practitioners of their arts"

That's still the perception of what happens if you give trades or professions too much power.

[Kym]

There are few professions that are truly regulated.
Medicine & law are the obvious ones.
But even then naturopathy, homeopathy etc. are much less regulated than modern medicine.