This is my second attempt at writing this essay, and while I'm not entirely sure that its "blog friendly" (might scare the customers ) I figured I'd share it with my FM friends.


Last evening I attended a meeting for Weddings: The Bridal Show at the Opryland Resort Hotel. For those of you who aren't local, Opryland is a pretty amazing place: in addition to its almost 3000 guest rooms, it boasts a gigantic enclosed atrium with a river, waterfalls, 15 restaurants, and at this time of year a gigantic Christmas tree.

As I strolled through the vast enclosure, I couldn't help but notice a large number of families that were sporting Digital Rebels, Nikon d40's, and Sunpak tripods. These jovial groups were moving about the holiday displays, setting up the camera, and taking their own family portraits. These shots are inevitably lacking in some of the finer aspects of technical photography, however I don't doubt that these families will probably treasure these images at least as much as they would a "traditional" studio portrait. Certainly, the families are more likely to remember the experience associated with the picture-taking with pleasure.

The AVERAGE consumer of photography usually only cares about an image in the extent to which everyone looks pleasant, and it serves as a record of a pleasing memory. And contrary to what many of pro-shooters think, this is a good, healthy, and human.

Traditionally, the market for art is a very small one. How many people do you know who have commissioned a painted portrait? Do most of your friends have a collection of signed & numbered silver gelatin prints in their homes? Heck, what percentage of the population even visits an art museum with regularity?

For the past hundred years or so, the only remotely reasonable way to ensure that a person's likeness was recorded or that an event's happenings were captured was to pay a trained professional. A properly focused and exposed image was beyond the reach of the general population. Thus, almost everyone would at one time or another employ a photographer for a family portrait, wedding, or other important occasion.

Nowadays, all of those people who simply want a record of a moment can purchase the capability at a local bestbuy. Modern cameras produce adequate images with little or no effort on the part of the user, and for those who want a simple embellishment an "artsy" look is only a few clicks away in photoshop. Given that most people really don't care about artistic subtleties, why on earth should they have to pay a premium for a self-styled "artist" to produce something beyond the scope of what they really want?

As photography technology continues to become more accessible to the masses, the "middle" market for photography will continue to die. You won't see the average couple spending massive amounts of money on photographers for their wedding when a simple record of the event is only a click away. More families will flee the studios on main-street in favor of a brief outing with a camera and tripod.

Will consumer professional photography die?

There are always people who appreciate fine art, and are willing to pay for something with true artistic merit. There will always be people who hope that their likeness or family portrait can achieve more a literalistic representation. Some individuals will always desire wedding photos with grace, elegance, and romance beyond what can be achieved by an amateur with an itchy shutter-finger. However, these aficionados with the budget to acquire art and a willingness to appreciate it will always be a minority group, and completely inadequate to support the vast network of professional photographers that has arisen.

Professional photography will become a two-class system, similar to music or other visual arts. There will be a plethora of hopefuls and weekend warriors chasing the dream and a very small percentage actually succeeding. The middle of the market will continue to disappear, and one's likelihood in achieving a livelihood behind a camera will be roughly analogous to the probability of scoring a hit single on the pop charts or selling out a major gallery opening in NYC.

I figured it was already a two-class system, like musicians. You've got your superstars who do it full time and make a living off of it, and do very well; and you've got everyone else, the Underlings. Youve got Weekend Warriors, Wannabes, and Camera Heros. Some of the Underlings have technical ability and are on their fast-track to living the rock-and-roll lifestyle of a burdened busy professional photographer, others know how to take a decent portrait and toss a plugin on top of it and sell it for a few bucks, being famous on myspace, etc. I don't think too much will change. All that's changed is the tools.

We've got faster-than-ever computers available to the public but you don't see many people quantifying variables for the eventual building of a Flux Capacitor in their basement.

We've got WebMD and other websites available out there to help figure out what's wrong with us. This curbs a few visits to the doctor, of course, but in the end, there will always be a ruptured spleen that duct tape can't fixed. Same thing here. People will always need a higher level of service from a professional.

We've got higher quality video cameras available, but the public's not putting out Transformers 3 starring my friend's nephew and my next door neighbor. Sure, extreme examples, but it will always boil down to the truely talented. Not everyone is willing to put the time, effort, skill, and passion into photography as most of us are going to do.



We will for the most part always be safe, because we're better than everyone else. You just need to keep it that way, and never stop learning.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. Anyone that lives in a town with a mediocre photography studio (there's 2 in my town) probably knows that the days of getting paid to make mediocre photography are all but over. One studio is already closed, the other seems to be just hanging on. It's just not practical for a photographer to ask someone for $200 to take mediocre family photos when a cheap DSLR is $500. Hence, the middle market is quickly dying.

However, I don't think your analogy works. The chance of a hit single is still astronomical compared to making a living as a photographer. Even if the mid-market completely dies, there will still be thousands of weddings each year in each major city of people who would like the work of a professional.

The key, if you ask me, is advancing. With things like Strobist, everyone and their mother seems to know a bit about off-camera flash. A concept that was unheard of even to some pros as recently as 5 years ago. Pros need to stay ahead of the curve with these things, because there are dozens of up-and-comers just waiting for their work.

Hey Evan,

Nice blog entry. While I agree that the top level argument is true, I think there are points that, in my opinion, are a bit too doomsday for my taste. Of course, this is your opinion and I am not questioning the validity of that, just wanted to interject a few things.

I think the herd will certainly be thinned with the advancement in technology. Cameras will get better, more intelligent and do a better job on P mode. But one of the very big things I see as a photographer is, if you don't pay someone to do it, then you will almost always be missing one person in the shot. Things like holiday photos at Opryland really don't require a professionally trained photographer and many people are not willing to pay for that type of work.

However, certain things will not change. I do not forsee any way cameras can be intelligent enough to know how to use & sculpt light to create drama, beauty, innocence, or any other # of feelings in a photo. That will remain to be the realm of the professional and last time I checked, there's really no manual telling you what setting you use for "edgy". I think the gap between amateurs and professionals, if anything, will widen a bit as many photographers close up shop due to their work not justifying the price. Those photographers that remain will be so uber-talented and visionary, that the gap between amateur and professional will be a huge leap.

I think this is a natural progression of thing in the technological age. Remember Commodore 64's? Those were jaw-dropping graphics, at the time. These days, my cellphone has 10 times the amount of computing power and graphics capability as that and modern computers are such much better & faster at doing things. However, only a small percentage of users actually use the full potential of their machines. I see many similarities with photographers. There will always be needs for a true "professional", but the bar to be considered a professional will continue to rise to keep pace with the technology. More people will get these impressive cameras but never take the time to educate themselves on how they work, and how to take a good photo.

Tony Hoffer wrote:
I agree with everything except the last sentence. Anyone that lives in a town with a mediocre photography studio (there's 2 in my town) probably knows that the days of getting paid to make mediocre photography are all but over. One studio is already closed, the other seems to be just hanging on. It's just not practical for a photographer to ask someone for $200 to take mediocre family photos when a cheap DSLR is $500. Hence, the middle market is quickly dying.

However, I don't think your analogy works. The chance of a hit single is still astronomical compared to making a living as a photographer. Even if the mid-market completely dies, there will still be thousands of weddings each year in each major city of people who would like the work of a professional.

The key, if you ask me, is advancing. With things like Strobist, everyone and their mother seems to know a bit about off-camera flash. A concept that was unheard of even to some pros as recently as 5 years ago. Pros need to stay ahead of the curve with these things, because there are dozens of up-and-comers just waiting for their work.


Perhaps my last sentence is a LITTLE extreme, but I anticipate weddings between $500 and $5000 to be far and few between within a few years. There will still be a few of us doing very well (2k9 is well on course to be a very strong year, although I'm not already sold out like some of the studs in this conversation), but not many. The issue isn't just with "uncle bob" doing it for people: the weekend warriors who pay no taxes and have day jobs have no "failure point." There's no reason for someone just doing it on the side for a few hundred here or there to go out of business. The number of moderately talented enthusiasts with internet training is only going to increase. As supply goes up.....

Mostly, I consider this a wake-up call that "staying one step ahead" is about more than keeping up with the latest tricks and techniques: its about producing something with true artistic merit.

Evan Baines wrote:
Perhaps my last sentence is a LITTLE extreme, but I anticipate weddings between $500 and $5000 to be far and few between within a few years. There will still be a few of us doing very well (2k9 is well on course to be a very strong year, although I'm not already sold out like some of the studs in this conversation), but not many. The issue isn't just with "uncle bob" doing it for people: the weekend warriors who pay no taxes and have day jobs have no "failure point." There's no reason for someone just doing it on the side for a few hundred here or there to go out of business. The number of moderately talented enthusiasts with internet training is only going to increase. As supply goes up.....

Mostly, I consider this a wake-up call that "staying one step ahead" is about more than keeping up with the latest tricks and techniques: its about producing something with true artistic merit.

Keep plugging away, little buddy. You'll get there. HA!

In all seriousness, I agree with you. I have this debate in my head. Part of me is cynical and wants to freak out everytime I see a D40. The other part of me just says 'Relax and enjoy the fact that you have a job.' Things seem to work out over time I guess.

(How's that for a generalization and cliche all in one?)

If we constantly challenge ourselves to consistently produce things that joe blow with his best buy DSLR can't (I'm sure there are avenues we haven't even discovered yet), then there will always be a market. Only the supremely creative, innovative, and marketing genius' will survive though. You just have to choose to be one of those people.

^ +1

Evan Baines wrote:
Will consumer professional photography die?

Yes, the current wedding picture bubble will not last much longer.

My take is different on several counts. While anyone can get adequate results from the cameras available today, most do not. Most (some even post here at FM) do not have a clue (heck, I’m still learning) about white balance, setting white and black points, calibrated workflow, etc.

The quality of snapshots may very well improve, but it’s difficult to get into a photographer-subject relationship with friends and family. I know this because I have tried and failed on more than one occasion. This affects both relationships… I can’t take the photographs that I want to take because I can’t get my sister-brother-mother-friend to pose/behave the way that I need them to, and the subject can’t get the photos that they want for the same relationship problems/factors.

Then there is the equipment issue itself. Hauling around the gear necessary to get an adequate image is a nuisance. Most don’t want to carry around a DSLR and flashgun – the bare minimum – heck, my wife will do anything to not have to carry that stuff around.

It seems that people purchasing “art” expect to pay and I doubt that will change. My experiences suggest that the folks in the middle market understand that there is enough effort required to get satisfactory photographs that they are willing to pay someone else to do it. They also generally understand that they haven’t got the skill/experience, software and time to do the work necessary to finish the job. I expect many folks that are trying to make money from photography will likely fade away. I expect it is a fad and people will tire of because of the work required to do it well. Folks making money from photography will probably need to pick up their game in order to continue to make money. There are a ton of mediocre photogs in my market.

Photography, good photography, will continue to be a viable and profitable business opportunity. We are at a crossroads… those able to elevate themselves whether it be by superior business practices, more outgoing personalities or higher quality of work (hopefully all of the above) will succeed.

Pro photography will be around for a while longer. Schools, sports teams and weddings are still very big markets, as are senior portraits.
There are a lot of incoming folks wth digital these past few years but this economy, or people's perceptions of it, will have an effect.

First, more folks will enter to make a quick buck cause they're un or underemployed. Few will stick around. Many of the one's making money now will find a bad economy squeezes them out. You can be a great artist but you need to be a great business manager to succeed in business.
Brides will find that all the part timers that fade away and leave them without prints or albums and tell their friends hurting part timers overall, the coffee club artists (ones that work at, i mean, out of starbucks), etc.

Photography has always been popular but it will wane as the newness of digital wears off. Those that seek it as a career cause it's new to them will wear thin a bit I think.

There is room in the marketplace for all price ranges. Those that value art and photography will pay a premium for the best artists. The "near luxury" photogs will suffer in a tight economy - the starbucks, buicks, acura's, Macy's etc.

Who know what may open up in the future. Nikon and Canon have both released bodies that will do video. If you were a videographer would you be worried? I'd say maybe 15% of my weddings have a videographer. I could come up with some deal using a 5D and slideshow that would eliminate most of that 15%, or perhaps add to my income from every wedding, increasing my demand and sales to more people.

Who knows what the future will bring, but I can hardly wait!

Also, some of the baby boomers who've been doing photography for decades as a hobby will do photography to supplement their Social Security or pensions now that they have more time to pursue it.

Without reading the other comments, what Evan said is a much more eloquent version of what I said here a week ago.

I agree, consumer DSLRs will whittle away at the lower-middle class of photographers, especially with cheap chinese radio triggers, light stands, umbrellas and hobbyists taking the place of even Wal-mart and JCPenny / Sears portraits. Two to three years of using that setup could more than pay for itself in the savings on those portrait sessions.

My 2 cents here:

If you're struggling to keep up with the guy over your shoulder with a D40; then you're the one that needs updating. In any technology strand, eventually there's some huge flagship model for insane enthusiasts, and over time, that technology trickles down to the everyday layman. If in going through that trickle stage you don't learn more and advance better technically, once the same technology hits mainstream; that's it. A perfect example of this is the Sears studios that are closing. Their pictures consist of a cheap camera, a cheap lens and flat lighting on holiday backdrops. And it's been the same way for 20 years.

Another way to stay ahead of the D40s is to find new, niche markets. Personally, I'm having great success taking wedding style coverage and unique headshots and applying it to a new field. As a business person (not a photographer), we have to continually improve our product, ourselves, while watching market trends and opportunities. We can't go running in the streets everytime a new entry-level DSLR is introduced.

Honestly, if it weren't for this website and the things I have learned from the different posts and examples, I would not be where I am today. I am one of those who began photography as a hobby and it turned into a business. I've seen the work that amateurs put out around me and I have compared them to the kind of work I do and it does not come close. We are in a world where technology is changing almost everyday and those who can afford to stay ahead will succeed while others will struggle and the rest will just give up. The important fact is, if you do great work and you are innovative with your style of photography, people will continue to call on you. I've learned through this forum and have gained knowledge from what other professional photographers have shown and that is how I get better.

Everyone who is in this post express valid concerns and have every right to do so because this is your livelihood or you would not be in this business. Look at your work, see what you can do to be more creative or innovative, and just do what you do best, Capture the Moment.

I lurk around the Weddings forum because that's where the quality portrait work seems to pop up all the time. I'm not, and have no desire to be a professional photographer, but I've picked up tips here that have improved my results and workflow. So, even while posting in the wrong place, I'll still drop a comment in.

Professional photographers who demonstrate as much skill as the least impressive first-wedding post in here have nothing to fear from the D40 crowd. Yes, they're everwhere. No, people can't use them properly. The people who use digital SLR cameras properly now are the people who used film SLR cameras properly in times past.

People pile up more and more expensive hardware these days because they're far more gadget-focussed. "If I had a better camera/lens, I could have ...". Take a "nice picture" these days and the response (and even Strobist had a dig at this) is "Why, you must have a really good camera". Having a digital SLR adds to their gadget collection and makes them feel important and like they're doing Something Serious. If someone made a bulky and/or expensive camera outside the SLR form factor, they'd have one of those too. Oh, hang on, Leica M8.

I was at a corporate Xmas function recently and at least 8 people brough dSLRs, including a 1Ds Mk. III. Lots of L glass, too, and the obligatory lens showdown. As I was on the organising side of this function, I couldn't stand around taking photographs all the time - I had pithy (ha!) speeches to deliver. I handed my camera to one of these L-toting guys to get some material. I handed it over with everything set up for some workable shots. I got it back with poorly composed shots taken in "green" mode. Same happened again later with a 5D owner.

People like to think that having the big hardware makes them a bigger man, and nearly every overpaid IT worker can reasonably afford to buy $5k of camera kit to boost their ego. They'll use it for holiday snaps, annoying people in the pub with their annoying flash (Mmm, Canon's pop-up strobe-to-focus, nothing beats that for making people twitch) and taking the sort of pictures that people in times-past would have used a Polaroid for.

Having shot a few thousand bad pictures, they'll still pay for a professional for the occasions that warrant it because they'll take pride in paying someone else (preferably someone with a Reputation, so they can be Big Men) to cover the fact that even armed with a 5D Mk. II and a 70-200 2.8L IS, they still can't take a picture of their dog without getting it blurred and nice clear detail of the picket fence three metres behind it. In green mode. "My lens is back-focussing!!?!?!".

The other point with the vast majority of new digital shooters is:

a) They never print anything, probably because it's crap material.
b) They never do anything with their pictures other than Facebook, probably because the material is crap.
c) They'll shoot 500 frames, get one keeper (of the table decoration) and the failure rate reminds them why people pay for the real thing.

Portrait photography, especially "family photos" are doomed because people (at least in my experience) just don't do that anymore. They might get some squishy photos of the kids with santa or the new spawn, but a few cameraphone pics of the loved ones tend to fill that gap now. In an increasing informal society, formal photography seems out of place. Take a look at the average office worker's desk - if they have any pictures up, chances are they'll be a couple of wedding pics and a few family holiday snaps. And same for home - people just don't seem to move that way anymore.

Well, that's enough dribble for now.

manyquestions wrote:

a bunch of stuff


And I agree with pretty much all of it.

We have a client with more money than sense who told us (during one of the portrait sessions that she paid us for) that she has a 5D that her husband gave her when they had their baby. She went on to say that she had "a bunch of lenses, too. Most of them are the ones with the red stripe, those are supposed to be the good ones, right? I have one with a green stripe... I don't know what that one is."

She comes and pays us for a session a couple of times a year.

- Jeff

The general public has never been educated about photography. Point,smile,flash and they have all they want.

If your profession photos do not stand out from a novice with a D40 then you shouldn't be in business under any circumstance.

A wedding I shot last month had an uncle bob that had the same camera that I paid $3,000 for with a $1700 & a $1,800 lens, a $500 flash and then some bounce card he made for less than two dollars he got off stobist.

Nice guy but his photos were ugly.

Tony Hoffer wrote:
In all seriousness, I agree with you. I have this debate in my head. Part of me is cynical and wants to freak out everytime I see a D40. The other part of me just says 'Relax and enjoy the fact that you have a job.' Things seem to work out over time I guess.

(How's that for a generalization and cliche all in one?)

Tony, I'm not apt to agree on either side of your debate.

I certainly don't freak when I see a D40 (or a 1D3 even), I get curious. I go talk to the person. Gearheads love to jibber-jabber. Embracing people with their cameras goes a long way towards helping them understand how I do what I do better. My last wedding had a very close Aunt Betty (is that the current idiom for a female Uncle Bob?) that was having trouble with her flash diffuser. I showed her how to bounce (she was trying to take a good shot of the cake) and she was floored. The other Uncle Bob in attendance came over to say that he was surprised that not only was I being social with her, but that I was encouraging and helping her. The bottom line is that I know what I'm good at - and they are the skills that are *not* easy to teach others (interaction,composition,timing) - so it's no sweat to help those with the skills that *are* easy to teach.

Your flipside of enjoying the fact that you have a job, I can't agree with either. I make the job I have. I have that job because I've worked at being good at something. If you relax (and I don't mean to imply that you meant to relax in the manner I'm about to describe) and stop improving, you will lose what makes you worth paying for.

I'm comfortable in what I do right now because I am confident. I know that I produce work that is above average. The higher and higher I can raise my perception of average, the better I will become. If I can't produce work that is better than Uncle Bob, then I will do something else.

" but I anticipate weddings between $500 and $5000 to be far and few between within a few years."

Wow, I'd better raise my prices!

I agree with pretty much everything manyquestions wrote. Yes, cameras are getting better, but guess what, the general population isn't becoming more educated about photography. If all it took was a camera body and L glass, I'd be somewhat worried, but even an avid Uncle Bob isn't going to have the lighting equipment, much less know how to use it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the coming onslaught of technowizard cameras are actually going to INCREASE the number of $500 wedding shooters.

Some great points have been made thus far! Indeed, the advent of cheaper, better digital cameras is a concern to those who make their livelihoods taking pictures, but I'm also reminded regularly that a LOT of what makes a great photographer isn't based solely on gear, especially when it comes to portrait and event photographers.

Think about how you interact with your subjects? How do you get them to show genuine smiles? How do you make them comfortable with the camera? Getting someone to exude "real" emotion in front of a camera in many cases can be just as (if not more) tedious than simply working the camera itself.

Why do you think so many folks, especially here on FM, can garner such demand from prospective clients? Let me give you a tip, it's probably not as much about their camera skills as you might think.

Taking landscapes or candids is one thing, but when it comes to the necessary interactions with many different types of personalities that come along with shooting portraits, weddings, parties, etc..., a very large % of "wanna be's" are out of their league regardless of what gear they might be holding.

p150 wrote:
She went on to say that she had "a bunch of lenses, too. Most of them are the ones with the red stripe, those are supposed to be the good ones, right? I have one with a green stripe... I don't know what that one is."


Mwahahaha. Perhaps you could offer a trade-in discount - lens for portraits - some time? A 70-300 DO would be great before your next vacation. I'm hoping it's the 70-300, because the alternative is disturbing.

On an unrelated note, the D40 hordes have done another thing - they've killed a lot of photo opportunities for amateurs. People are getting so hacked off with having big cameras thrust into their face for 200 shots, that pulling out an SLR is enough to get people bolting and/or "I don't want my picture taken! No!". Absolutely killing it for candids.

Perhaps a downturn in general portrait photography is just people getting sick of cameras?