Okay, so this has been something that has been milling around in my brain for a little while now:

Why exactly is it that Photojournalists, sports photographers, etc. make so little money? Now, before you go off about the industry and big corporations, etc. I am going to go off on a limb and say that it isn't just this day and age that exhibited this low income. Even before AF, SLRs, DSLRs photographers still weren't raking in the millions despite the fact that photography truly is a very skill-oriented profession. Many people take photos, very few are good at it.

So what gives? Why have photographers even historically been so underpaid? Am I looking at this in a dumb way? Am I missing something? Am I trying to make my hobby, part-time job something out to be more than it really is?

It's one of two things.

A. Capitalism at it's best. Supply and demand curves with a big supply and low demand.

B. A century old conspiracy, backed by the Trilateral Commision and the Knights Templar, who have placed their agents in all the photo buyer positions of the free world.

Because you don't have to pay as much to get someone to do something that they enjoy.

Because it's a job of work, a labour. And unskilled labour at that. Photography never made it to the professions, was pioneered mostly by women and seen as a women’s hobby ~ now whilst the west don’t consider women second class people and haven’t for hundreds of years, they are still not taken too seriously, so despite women losing interest in the commercial photography segment, it’s origins were [and still are] not taken too seriously.

As it was seen as a women’s issue it could not gain credence with the ruling male clubs and photography was also shrouded in mystery as one initially had to be married to a rich husband and then consort with the devil [chemistry] and capture [craven] images which an increasingly enlightening public still thought was witchcraft.

Circa 1972, showing some of my classmates a print developing earned me the title ‘wizard’ which stuck until graduation. Even though the process had been explained in detail … seeing the image develop does look magical, devilish or spooky.

Photography never made it to the professions or even the trades, and is classed as unskilled labour. Individual photographers can become iconic, Adams, Rowell, Leibovitz, Bailey, Lichfield, Breson, Rosenthal and some become wealthy from the fruits of their labours in print sales and workshops, it’s still probably fair to say that most people don’t appreciate the photographer.

We might love his photograph as an artist his painting, but we’re less inclined to commission him, it’s his camera that makes the image, the photographer cannot create the image ~ what’s in front of the photographer’s camera is anybody’s to trip the shutter. Even on some large studios it's the apprentice who actually takes the photo ~ a stylist will dress the set, costume the models, make-up the beauty and a graphic designer the look, unless the photographer is all these things, and some are, most aren’t, then what is there left for the photographer to do? The fantastic artwork gracing our magazine and posters may have no resemblance to what the photographer submitted out of this camera. His/her name may only ever appear on the cheque.

It’s very difficult for a photographer to be creative, anyone can take a picture as good as his whereas the artist’s paint brushes won’t paint anything by themselves, an English artist, Hockney, stunned the world with a fantastic photographic exhibition ~ after the accolades, he spilled the beans, his masterpieces were taken by a donkey with a Minolta camera strapped to it’s side, the NEW autofocus system and electronic metering made the ‘art’ of photography dead and OPEN to the masses.

gbee wrote:
Because it's a job of work, a labour. And unskilled labour at that. Photography never made it to the professions, was pioneered mostly by women and seen as a women’s hobby ~ now whilst the west don’t consider women second class people and haven’t for hundreds of years, they are still not taken too seriously, so despite women losing interest in the commercial photography segment, it’s origins were [and still are] not taken too seriously.

As it was seen as a women’s issue it could not gain credence with the ruling male clubs and photography was also shrouded in mystery as one initially had to be married to a rich husband and then consort with the devil [chemistry] and capture [craven] images which an increasingly enlightening public still thought was witchcraft.

Circa 1972, showing some of my classmates a print developing earned me the title ‘wizard’ which stuck until graduation. Even though the process had been explained in detail … seeing the image develop does look magical, devilish or spooky.

Photography never made it to the professions or even the trades, and is classed as unskilled labour. Individual photographers can become iconic, Adams, Rowell, Leibovitz, Bailey, Lichfield, Breson, Rosenthal and some become wealthy from the fruits of their labours in print sales and workshops, it’s still probably fair to say that most people don’t appreciate the photographer.

We might love his photograph as an artist his painting, but we’re less inclined to commission him, it’s his camera that makes the image, the photographer cannot create the image ~ what’s in front of the photographer’s camera is anybody’s to trip the shutter. Even on some large studios it's the apprentice who actually takes the photo ~ a stylist will dress the set, costume the models, make-up the beauty and a graphic designer the look, unless the photographer is all these things, and some are, most aren’t, then what is there left for the photographer to do? The fantastic artwork gracing our magazine and posters may have no resemblance to what the photographer submitted out of this camera. His/her name may only ever appear on the cheque.

It’s very difficult for a photographer to be creative, anyone can take a picture as good as his whereas the artist’s paint brushes won’t paint anything by themselves, an English artist, Hockney, stunned the world with a fantastic photographic exhibition ~ after the accolades, he spilled the beans, his masterpieces were taken by a donkey with a Minolta camera strapped to it’s side, the NEW autofocus system and electronic metering made the ‘art’ of photography dead and OPEN to the masses.



Interesting read. Thanks for this.

Ouch! Post that in the pro forum and see what happens.

EOS up North wrote:
Ouch! Post that in the pro forum and see what happens.

This bit?

"Because it's a job of work, a labour. And unskilled labour at that."

paulhodson wrote:
EOS up North wrote:
Ouch! Post that in the pro forum and see what happens.

This bit?

"Because it's a job of work, a labour. And unskilled labour at that."



Yea.

The part about the Donkey probably wouldn't be well received well either!

paulhodson wrote:
EOS up North wrote:
Ouch! Post that in the pro forum and see what happens.

This bit?

"Because it's a job of work, a labour. And unskilled labour at that."



Ouch x 2.

Professional photography becomes highly dependent on disposable income when you bring it down to the individual customers' level. You don't see many back yard weddings that serve cold cuts from Costco hire a $5K wedding pro. The $5K wedding pro chases after the high end (read: highly paid) market so the backyard weddings/receptions become the battlegrounds for the entry-level wedding photogs and uncle Bob with the big camera where the better value/cheaper photogs are preferred.

The wait list for the free 8x10 at Babies R Us is six weeks because it's free. It has little to do with quality.

Woman's hobby? How long have you been rewritng history?

So what gives? Why have photographers even historically been so underpaid? Am I looking at this in a dumb way? Am I missing something? Am I trying to make my hobby, part-time job something out to be more than it really is?

It does come down to supply & demand, but also look at great artists (photographers, painters, sculptors, etc) through history. Few were ever truly great and appreciated in their own time. Photography isn't alone in that aspect.

As for Because you don't have to pay as much to get someone to do something that they enjoy. I gotta disagree. Otherwise I wouldn't have to pay $80 for a decent seat at an NHL game.

I have spoken with "professional" photographers who made their money in high fashion shoots. Even they could not earn enough. That is why so many well known photographers earn most of their money leading workshops nor group tours. Just look at all the well known names who do this.

I think that the reason why you are surprised about a photographer's pay has more to do with what people think a photographer makes rather than what they actually earn.

There seems to be a very big misconception by people that photographers make "a lot" of money. An image which isn't exactly helped by the media who portray the life style of a photographer as being glamourous, well paid, filled with scantily clad willing models,... You usually only read about the few top end photographers who do earn a lot of money. But they are only a small number, just like in any other profession where you will have a few "stars" earning a lot of money whereas the rest will make a normal living.

If you want to get an idea of wht the salary of a photogpraher is really like you can always get some idea by visiting salary wizzard. ( http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_CM02000016.html)

this will show you that the average photographer's salary is about 49,239 USD. This site doesn't specify who is included in the salary pool, but this will give you at least some sort of idea. I think that most people will agree with me that 50K is a nice salary to have, but once all your taxes and other contrbutions come out of it there is not that much left to live the glamourous lifstyle portrayed on tv

One reason that photography pay can be so little is self-sabotage by photographers. How many times on this and other forums as well as in day to day activities have you heard photographers say "I lowered my price just to get the gig".
"I wanted the experience, needed the money, I was just trying to help out whoever. Also they do a shoot and the customer comes back to renegotiate thier fee using whatever excuse.
They also lack confidence in themselves and price too low.
I have my price and yes some thank it is outrageous. I tell them that I have spent a lot of time and effort learning my trade. They are paying for my experience as well as my time.
I have many people walk away because they thought I was to expensive only to return with bad photos from a cheaper photographer. Then they are ready to deal on my finacial terms.
People in my community know of my ability and they know I don't make deals just to do thier shoot.
I get paid well but then again they know that they will get thier money's worth.
If it is a area that I am not well versed in then I tell them that and let them decide.
If they come back wanting a lower price the answer is no. We had a contractual agrrement. I also sit down with them ahead of time and learn what it is that they want and what they expect. I do not leave anything to chance or second guessing.
Some will say that this is too hard-nosed but then many people know that if they claim to be not completely happy then you might renegotiate you fee.
Know what you are worth and don't compramise just to get work. If your work is truly outstanding then people will not hesitate to pay for. But then again why would they pay for it if they know you can be negotiated down regardless of how good you are?