David du Chemin on pros vs. amateurs (1 Viewer)

Here's a guy who gets it, at least from my worldview. So well written and says everything I have felt to be true but couldn't say as an Am.

http://davidduchemin.com/2015/02/commodity-failure-a-rant/

You, my friend, have allowed yourself to become a commodity. You are just selling average photography, and someone else is giving average away. It’s the way it is. And the only way to combat it, is not legislation or licensing or accreditation with some Governing Body of Mediocrity. It’s to find a way to offer something valuable enough for people to pay for it. That is the skill of being a professional photographer. It’s in making something of value to someone and making that connection. If only you were as creative with your business as you are with your photography. If only you studied your marketing as well as you studied the B&H Catalog. If only you spent more time connecting to your audience, listening to their needs, and finding ways to make exactly the thing you want to make, in such a way that it uniquely meets their needs. That is what people pay for.

Click to expand...

I feel much better now.

Another dose of reality: http://digital-photography-school.com/6-things-to-consider-before-becoming-a-professional-photographer/

#5 for me.

#4-#6. LOL!

I licensed a photo to Mazda about 18 months ago. It was a photo of many of my fellow San Diego Miata Club members standing by (or in) their Miatas and waving at the camera. Mazda found the photo at our club web page and contacted me about licensing it. Originally, they wanted to license it just for web, movie theater, and stadium screens types of uses. But later they asked me how much extra it would be to license it for broadcast use (no print use). I quoted them $1,300 for a 5 year license for that single photo. They accepted my terms. That's the most I've ever made from a single photo. This is the photo:





Since then, I've seen Mazda use the photo 3 times. The first place was Mazda's "The Mazda Way" commercial which played in movie theaters (pre movie entertainment). Given my love of movies, I thought that was fitting! And, indeed, the first time I saw it was in a movie theater! This is the commercial (my photo appears briefly at 1:27 into the video):





The other two places I saw Mazda use the photo was at the invitation-only unveiling of the 4th generation Miata in September 2014. My wife and were invited to attend that event. Mazda ran a short video to begin the event and used my photo during the video. Then, after Mazda designer Derek Jenkins gave the initial remarks to introduce the car, they ran a second (different) video and used my photo again. Right after that second video, the new Miata drove out onto the stage. My wife and I were right next to the stage (but not allowed to touch the car).


Here is the video from the live reveal. My photo is used at 53 second in, and again at 6:23 into the video. At 7:17 into the video you can hear someone in the audience yell "Oh yeah, baby!" That is my wife!





BTW, yes, the audio is out of sync. Mazda fixed it in later YouTube releases, but they removed the two videos (with my photo) that played during the event.


Anyway, got carried away there, sorry. The point of my message is that I got $1,300 for the photo (5-year non-print license). Before I quoted Mazda's ad agency a price, I sought input from my friends (including a few photographer friends). I got responses from "give it to Mazda for free" to suggesting I ask a few hundred dollars. Nobody suggested it was worth anywhere close to one thousand dollars. But my research regarding stock photography for a specialized market suggested I could easily ask for more than $1,000. And when Mazda agreed to my terms, many of my friends were stunned! They couldn't believe that a single photo could be worth $1,300.


And, as it turned out, they were right. The photos was worth MORE than $1,300. You see, due to SAG (Screen Actors Guild) rules (which Mazda abides), every single person visible in my photo got paid for their "performance". They were all paid $125 each. And with 34 people visible in the photo, that worked out to another $4,250 for Mazda.


$5,550 for a single photo (no print use)! Don't underestimate the value of your photos!


That said, I just got lucky. Lucky in the sense that Mazda chose my photo. Not lucky regarding the $1,300, because I was the one that named the price.


Still, I don't remotely consider myself a professional photographer. I don't hire myself out. I shoot for fun and, if any money comes my way for something I shot, so much the better. Sadly, as mentioned in the other thread, I'm simply not able to get about like I used to without paying a price. Too much wear and tear.


Mark

At another forum...a guy goes...

"I dabble in professional photography as a hobby"...

That created a shit storm.

I've donated a few pics, obviously give cred, to museums and clubs. I was at a drag race eons ago and just happened to take a wide shot on medium format film at the finish line of the first funny car to ever hit 300mph.

I got tickets to the Winter Nationals for 10 years...with two other events for 5 years.

I might have gotten more out of that photo...but...eeehhh.

The NHRA has the negative. I gave it to them.

I had someone request the use of a photo I had taken of the Lower Falls in Yellowstone at dawn once. I decided I didn't want to deal with the business end of things, and politely declined the request.


For me, I would add another reason -- I am not that interested in photographing people, which seems to be where there are the most opportunities to earn money (portraits, events, etc.). I enjoy shooting landscapes and wildlife. While some people earn a living doing that, I think it's a lot more difficult.

Most people who know me know I'm not really a people person, so when I go out to conventions/events/parties to photograph people, it's more of a performance on my part so I go home with some decent photos to play around with and not waste my time/money just hanging out somewhere. It's actually work for me on the front end before snapping a single shot, than just doing the post-processing on the back-end. But I'm getting better at asking for what I want from people or collaborating with them, rather than just getting a polite smile and whatnot, and snapping the photo.

I can totally relate to feeling like you're performing when taking wedding or portrait photos. It's exhausting.


The article I linked to actually resonates a lot as I've wondered for about the last decade whether I should be "going pro." The reasons I have never committed to the idea are essentially #3-#6, which is significant. I was first inspired to photograph by the work of photojournalist Harry Benson, so for a time I also wanted to be a photojournalist, but we can see from the state of the industry how great a career move that would have been. :|


As things are now, I would consider myself "semi-pro" as my day job does include photography, but just not the breadth of subject matter that would be ideal (though it does help me avoid reasons 4 to 6). However, it does give me a regular paycheck, benefits, and a team I like working with. At this stage in my life, the risk of going into business for myself in a highly competitive field is just too great on multiple levels.

I like that my "hobby" nets me photos like this one:


PS_63165 by Patcave, on Flickr