Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 14, 2009 at 11:22 AM
How much money can one realistically make at photography? I did a little digging for info, here is what I found - http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/starving-artist/
photography alone is an immensly wide field from wedding specialist to those shooting commercial advertising, photo journalists etc etc. to throw the whole field into the even wider field of artists (painters, writers etc.) makes it not very esay to find out what a nature photographer might be able to make. stock photographers are standing and falling with the economy as they mostly sell their images through agencies and don't have much control over it anymore. (meaning they have problems self marketing their work without interfering with rights sold by the agncies) but even in stock photography are wide varieties of those who try with corbis gettys and the other ones trying their luck with small very specialized agancies. just look at what gettys asks from phoographers now: U$ 50,- per photo upfront if they have accepted you and you pretty much loose all the possesion and power over the image and all similar ones... for some this works for some this is just a way to loos a job.
what I am saying is: all these average numbers do not really speak any clear language. too many differncies in too many fields. I know photographers at all ends of the spectrum, and I know one thing: your income and success depends on many, many facettes, hard work, business smarts and talent being only a few of them. it depends where you live, who do know, how your live is structured (children? etc.) the field you are in will play a big role too as f.e. fine art photographers have surely a harder job making a decent income than commercial photographers getting paid 3-4000 a day for advertising assignements. but then, they have a much nicer job, imo...
i think you painted a too bleak picture. to become a nature photographer is very hard but for those who really made it, it is still nive way of life with not such a bad an income either.
just my 2 cents.
georg
Posted by David Prichard on February 14, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Darwin,
Over the course of my career I have seen the business model for photography change quite dramatically. One of my early mentors was an in-house photographer for Dehavilland in Toronto. A friend started his career doing the same for Rolls Royce in the U.K. In-house work is very rare now.
In Canada, in the early 90's, free trade saw the end of such major studios as TDF and ADS as well as many of the small boutique studios.
For me, photography wasn't as much about the money as it was the independence. It has offered me the opportunity to work with some interesting people and places. While it has become more difficult to make a good income in photography, see Editorial Photographers for their articles on The War on Photographers, the demand for images, seemly regardless of quality has, in my opinion, devalued the profession.
We have all seen, even on this site, 'contests' which ask a photographer to surrender rights in exchange for some meagre prize. And should you not win the contest, you still lose rights. About a decade ago, while attending a lecture at the Ontario College of Art, I over heard a student remark to a colleague that she was almost late for her class on how to control photographers.
As George notes, location is part of it. Locally I don't know of anyone that is making a living with photography due to our remoteness. Yet the local paper recently ran an ad for an organization running a 'contest' the requirements of which read like an art director's assignment.
By the example of my early mentors, I knew it wasn't likely photography wouldn't make me wealthy. What was attractive was both the independence they had and respect for their chosen profession by others. While the business model for photography has changed, as it has with other professions, it is not the adapting to new business practises that is difficult, it is the seeming degradation of the profession that troubles.
Posted by Erik Stensland on February 14, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Good article Darwin. Almost always I find that people have these unrealistic ideas of what nature photographers make. While there may be a few that really do well in nature photography, I think the majority of landscape photographers live much closer to the bottom than the top. I have my own gallery selling fine art prints and after all the product costs, rent and staff are paid for there isn't a lot left over. I like to joke that if I didn't shoot professionally, I might be able to afford more than two lenses. For my family, this means that we live a simple life, but we get to enjoy living next to a place of great beauty and are able to do a lot together. I probably would earn more flipping burgers but I chose this job not for the money but for the solitude, beauty and and joy of being in the wild.
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 14, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Several times a week I get emails from people wanting to know how to become a full-time photographer and often the next question is "how much do you make"? IF they ask the second question, I tell them photography is probably not for them because they would be in it for the wrong reasons. But for these folks I tried to find some data to give them a 'number'.
Georg is so correct, there are soooooooo many kinds of photography, it is almost impossible to get realistic numbers on incomes for one type of photography let alone nature photography. Most nature photographers are small self-employed types and just like any self-run business, success depends on so many factors that any 'average income' estimates are essentially meaningless. Based on what I know for a fact that my colleages make, let me just say it is often less than the national average income!
But... when you talk with full time nature photographers they would not change a thing! They are experience rich and the richness of the job more than makes up for the low recompense financially. Money is a the reason people becaome nature photographers
Wayne Rhodus' "Rich Man" posting in this forum pretty much sums up why we pick nature photography as a hobby or career! Darwin.
Very informative article, Darwin. I think your last comment in the article, "Well, you’ll need to do it for love, not money", pretty well sums things up for a lot of us.
Heck, and here I thought we all did it for the love of money.
I can recall 20 years ago when I met my first real full time money making nature photographer. I have followed his work off and on for years now. I can recall him telling me when we first met, "you know, my biggest competitor is not a better photographer then I am, he is just a much better salesman then I am".
Hey Darwin- Before I respond I'm going to suggest that you make the ongoing plugs for your blog links, rather than just listing the URL. It's easy using the tools NPN provides, if you don't want to bother typing in all those brackets, URLs, equals and slashes. Actually, it's only going to cost you a few keystrokes to do it yourself. You've got interesting and often worthwhile things to say, but I'm just about through copying and pasting URLs into new browser pages myself, all to follow someone's self-promotion. Your blog is littered with links, so why not do the same here?
Sorry for the mini-rant! Errr......... Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all. Take it as constructive criticism. I'm not doing any more copying and pasting. Ooops. Yet another mini-rant.
It's self-affirming for me to read the numbers and experiences you cite. As a part of our larger photo business (see my NPN staff profile at the top of the page) we do all our own stock sales, almost entirely to established clients in other venues. While our income from stock is a little higher that your average, it represents only about 20% of our income from photography, reflecting more a lack of effort than the potential, I think. We've decided to elevate our efforts in stock, but we're sure not going to share half or more of the income with the stock agencies. The most successful stock photographers I know with the exception of two, do all their own stock sales. Those two derive about 90% of their stock sales from quick responses to the "want lists" distributed by their stock houses, rather than from the vast banks of their images that are housed in the agency's photo files.
Posted by Jay Patel on February 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM
The reality of landscape photography is that there is too much competition and not large enough market. To make matters worse, digital SLR has just ended up creating a lot more photographer then there were in day of film. Anyone with a decent point and shoot and a time on his hands can go out and take make nature photography his business. I make money from my landscape photography, but it is still a hobby for me. And there are quite a few like me to can with some talent can sell their photograph to anyone these days.
On Hank's rant above...Self promotion is how you make it. So, go for it!!!
-Jay
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 18, 2009 at 5:59 PM
As a photographer, I'm working on my 2nd million!
(I gave up on the first!)
Posted by Nathan Buck on February 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Discussion
9 repliesDarwin
what I am saying is: all these average numbers do not really speak any clear language. too many differncies in too many fields. I know photographers at all ends of the spectrum, and I know one thing: your income and success depends on many, many facettes, hard work, business smarts and talent being only a few of them. it depends where you live, who do know, how your live is structured (children? etc.) the field you are in will play a big role too as f.e. fine art photographers have surely a harder job making a decent income than commercial photographers getting paid 3-4000 a day for advertising assignements. but then, they have a much nicer job, imo...
i think you painted a too bleak picture. to become a nature photographer is very hard but for those who really made it, it is still nive way of life with not such a bad an income either.
just my 2 cents.
georg
Over the course of my career I have seen the business model for photography change quite dramatically. One of my early mentors was an in-house photographer for Dehavilland in Toronto. A friend started his career doing the same for Rolls Royce in the U.K. In-house work is very rare now.
In Canada, in the early 90's, free trade saw the end of such major studios as TDF and ADS as well as many of the small boutique studios.
For me, photography wasn't as much about the money as it was the independence. It has offered me the opportunity to work with some interesting people and places. While it has become more difficult to make a good income in photography, see Editorial Photographers for their articles on The War on Photographers, the demand for images, seemly regardless of quality has, in my opinion, devalued the profession.
We have all seen, even on this site, 'contests' which ask a photographer to surrender rights in exchange for some meagre prize. And should you not win the contest, you still lose rights. About a decade ago, while attending a lecture at the Ontario College of Art, I over heard a student remark to a colleague that she was almost late for her class on how to control photographers.
As George notes, location is part of it. Locally I don't know of anyone that is making a living with photography due to our remoteness. Yet the local paper recently ran an ad for an organization running a 'contest' the requirements of which read like an art director's assignment.
By the example of my early mentors, I knew it wasn't likely photography wouldn't make me wealthy. What was attractive was both the independence they had and respect for their chosen profession by others. While the business model for photography has changed, as it has with other professions, it is not the adapting to new business practises that is difficult, it is the seeming degradation of the profession that troubles.
Georg is so correct, there are soooooooo many kinds of photography, it is almost impossible to get realistic numbers on incomes for one type of photography let alone nature photography. Most nature photographers are small self-employed types and just like any self-run business, success depends on so many factors that any 'average income' estimates are essentially meaningless. Based on what I know for a fact that my colleages make, let me just say it is often less than the national average income!
But... when you talk with full time nature photographers they would not change a thing! They are experience rich and the richness of the job more than makes up for the low recompense financially. Money is a the reason people becaome nature photographers
Wayne Rhodus' "Rich Man" posting in this forum pretty much sums up why we pick nature photography as a hobby or career! Darwin.
Heck, and here I thought we all did it for the love of money.
I can recall 20 years ago when I met my first real full time money making nature photographer. I have followed his work off and on for years now. I can recall him telling me when we first met, "you know, my biggest competitor is not a better photographer then I am, he is just a much better salesman then I am".
Sorry for the mini-rant! Errr......... Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all. Take it as constructive criticism. I'm not doing any more copying and pasting. Ooops. Yet another mini-rant.
It's self-affirming for me to read the numbers and experiences you cite. As a part of our larger photo business (see my NPN staff profile at the top of the page) we do all our own stock sales, almost entirely to established clients in other venues. While our income from stock is a little higher that your average, it represents only about 20% of our income from photography, reflecting more a lack of effort than the potential, I think. We've decided to elevate our efforts in stock, but we're sure not going to share half or more of the income with the stock agencies. The most successful stock photographers I know with the exception of two, do all their own stock sales. Those two derive about 90% of their stock sales from quick responses to the "want lists" distributed by their stock houses, rather than from the vast banks of their images that are housed in the agency's photo files.
On Hank's rant above...Self promotion is how you make it. So, go for it!!!
-Jay
(I gave up on the first!)
Nathan