Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I am a professional photographer. I'd like to share some uncomfortable truths about photography. From Reddit.

I agree with him. He makes a lot of great points, skims, or ignores some other good counter points, but you can't cover everything. This thing that we love to do is very accessible. Is it easy to be great? No. Don't be silly. But how many are truly great? Far less than admit it. I'm just happy to be in the meaty part of the bell curve and occasionally make some money and make some people smile. It's the way of the future!

I agree with his points but disagree that the profession is dying. While technology does help, I don't think it's the core of being a photographer. A good photographer is one that understands the environment that they are working in (landscapes, lighting) and a good communicator when working with people (weddings, events). This greatly shows in the final product. A successful photographer is also great at marketing and none of these can be learned in months and none of these can be taken over by technology.

There will always be people and companies who want quality and are willing to compensate for it.

Just a follow up also from the reddit IAMA about a sports photographer http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1 ... apher_ama/

'Advice for someone wanting a career in photography You will only make money at portraits. Focus all your efforts at being a fantastic portrait artist. Do not major in photography or anything like that. Major in business. Because being successful is 90% business and 10% shooting. If you don't know what you are doing business-wise, you will fail even if you kick ass behind the camera. Don't start charging too soon. Spend your time developing your style. When you start charging, you start shooting for other people, not yourself. Don't undercut anyone. Don't work for free. It is a very small community of successful people in this industry and you will quickly develop a terrible reputation and it will end your career. '

Wow! That is one bitter article, very biased, and very wrong.

The more people photograph, the more people have high-end cameras, the more they love and respect true artists.

Further, his points about editing are off. There is no golden rule of what is and is not acceptable. If the image is heavily edited to portray something it is not and it's photojournalism then obviously that is morally wrong. But there are many other ways images can be edited - ie. for dramatic effect.

I find it quite funny. The more people put pictures on facebook the more they link truly wonderful images. Exposure for a good photog is better now than ever. It's a golden age. And with the advent of affordable metal prints, glass prints, acrylic, etc. I don't see what the problem is. Maybe it was a bad day? Or he isn't making money and needs someone, anyone but himself, to blame? No idea.

I disagree with this point. The more deal with men that have the gear the more I hear that they could produce the same output if they had the time to do it and had the post production tools. I feel most people don't appreciate good photography when it comes to payment, or at the very least it's quite polarised. I'm glad I don't have to rely on it income from it, which allows me to turn away people that have an insulting opinion.

Based on my experiences at the track, he's pretty much bang on. People provide their kid of significant other with a DSRL, after which said person starts to blaze away in 'spray and pray.' Out of a thousand shots, they're going to get a couple that are 'good enough.' The only shots I sold to a print publication, this year, were because I was the only recognizable name at the track when all of the national racers came out for a regional race, as practise for the first national round. Through the season they either published pics that the writers took themselves, or that they got free from a racer who shoots between her own races.

Media is, more and more, using viewer/reader submitted photos and video. CP24 is a prime example of this but look at the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun lately, and you'll see a lot of 'reader's photos' published.

To keep working you have to find a niche that either isn't easily replaced by the home shooter, or that most people don't care to do. For me it's shooting the overall history around the track, then making an annual book to record it.

I can't agree more ... the guy nail it on the head.

It has been true from my experience. Of course others may deal with different people and get vastly differing points of view.


I think the digital age is making a huge impact, of that there is no doubt. And I'm sure in some sectors it will have a serious negative impact. Like the poster mentioned about at the track.

But in other areas I believe it is having a positive impact. For example event photography has seen a rise. Wedding photography is going strong, albeit with quite a lot of competition.

The career I worry for is journalism. I don't think printed paper is going away but it is being seriously impacted to say the least.

Very bitter article, but in his particular profession, a lot of it may be true. Photojournalism and Sports Photography are probably getting hit pretty hard right now, but rightfully so. The original poster says himself that you can learn to do what he does in a month, maybe less. What is that saying about his skills and talents?

All I got out of that article was "Waah, I'm a run of the mill photographer with nothing that sets me apart from the pack and I'm worried about my livelihood". He should be. As he clearly stated, he grew up in a world where money came to those who could reload and get their camera to produce consistent results the fastest. Not unlike a trades-person, looking to put up drywall efficiently, reliably and quickly. Those days of photography are long gone; Sports and News photographers are all that's left of that world and they're worried.

Photography has moved away from being a work process to a creative process. This is an age old argument; how many people have their own portraits painted since the advent of photography? The printing press ushered in the advent of "Writing" as a creative process. Anyone has access to a pen, pencil, typewriter, computer but it's what they do with it that makes them a successful writer. I wonder if that guy who used to copy all of those church books by hand in the 1300's was complaining .

The original poster is a relic of the past, describes himself as a completely average photographer with nothing that sets him apart. What person who is average at their job ISN'T WORRIED about competition?? I'm surprised he didn't mention the need for a sports and news photographers union.

I would say that wedding photography is also suffering from the large number of 'professionals' who will shoot a wedding for $500.00 or less, or the 'get uncle Marty to shoot it' types. A couple of years back I had a friend ask if I would shoot his wedding. I told him that I would but I would feel much more comfortable directing him to a good wedding specialist, since it wasn't likely that the ceremony would be taking place on the back of his race bike (I know my limitations). He took that to mean I wouldn't shoot it.

The 'professional' he hired (not a referral from me) showed up with one consumer body and kit lens. She shot the wedding. After the ceremony was over, she started packing up. My friend asked her if she was going to be taking some candids now, as they had originally discussed. She said that she 'didn't do that sort of thing' and left. I had brought my E-3 and 35-100 F2 with me and took a few shots I thought would be interesting. By 'few' I mean 4. When I emailed them over a couple of days later, he and his new wife liked them better than what the 'professional wedding photographer' had taken. I thought they were amateurish, at best.

I think all of us here know that a 'pro' isn't necessarily a pro. A good wedding photographer is much more than someone with a camera, time on his hands, and an invoice book. A good wedding photographer costs multiples of that $500.00 figure that I mentioned. There's a proliferation of $500.00 wedding shooters out there.

The other side of that coin is an amateur isn't necessarily an amateur. There are those who are not full time shooters who will do a wedding on the cheap, $500 is a bit low (but I have done those), that turn out to be a good bargain for the customer. They get "pro" level quality at "amateur" prices. Why? A pile of reasons but it happens, especially for the reasons the harsh realist listed.

True enough, but what's the ratio? 10:1? 100:1?

True, good point and no idea, probably pretty high to be fair.

Well, I should have read the entire thread before writing up a response because I ended up deleting it.

Bartimus has said it very well, photography is not a work process but a creative process.
Well that's how it should be although many people don't seem to see it that way.