Do you think it's possible to be a great Landscape Photographer and a Youtuber?

[benc98]

I have the same problem with Street Photography YouTube and specifically POV videos. In POV videos the photographers tend to go for easy/simple photos that aren't that interesting.. I get why they do it.. they need to make interesting content and a 1 hour video of them fishing a scene waiting for something good to happen would be boring. A lot of newbies or others that want to learn about street photography hold these photographers in high regard, use these channels to learn and get tips about the genre, but it's a terrible place to start. So I think it's hard to be both a great photographer and video content creator

 

[Wayne Els]

I'm not really interested in content creation or social media hits and I'm not a great landscape photographer.
I kind of agree with the OP in that if you are doing a shoot with fast changing light, paticularly at dawn for example you probably need to pay attention to what's happening. But then there's no reason why you can't shoot to video before or after the main event. People like Thomas Heaton do this quite successfully.

 

[myotis]

I have assumed that the landscape youtubers (at least the one who make a living from it) do their "proper work" while not making Youtube videos, and the youtube videos are primarily marketing, made when it's appropriate to do so.

 

[ScottT]

This particular composition I had spent around 30-45 minutes tweaking... I wanted everything to be absolutely on point. This involved meticulous alterations in placement, Tripod height, angles, the effect of a CPL on the given composition from one millimetre to the next and then the utmost concentration in terms of focusing, composition, visual flow and so on and so forth.

Had I been chatting away to a Camera behind or adjacent to me I am convinced I'd have never got that image.

You could have pointed a camera (2 would be better) at yourself while you did all this, edit the footage into a short version then record a voice over later. You would have got the same shot, and you have then time to go into detail on what you were doing for your viewers.
What you see on youtube is a tiny part of what went on that day, watching someone tweak his tripod for 20mins doesnt make good viewing, when a 3 second clip covers it. Many of the people I watch on YT seem to be out anything from 4 to 6+ hrs but condense the day into a 10-20min video, editing is your friend if you're spending 30-45 mins tweaking.

If you're spending 30-45 mins tweaking, then film after you have done all that. All you are doing otherwise is waiting for the light then pressing the shutter, once you have the shot you can carry on with your video. If you watch Tom Heaton he often misses filming the shot and always says the light was kicking off and I didnt have to to film it, he gets the shot and still makes a watchable video to go with it, so yes it can be done.

 

[Scirocco_09]

It depends, if you go full in with all the drone footage and walking shots and you’re recording those while conditions are temporarily great for stills there’s a strong chance you’ll miss the very best shots. I’m paid as a photographer and videographer but honestly to do both at the same time there’s a massive conflict and it takes a different mindset. You might get 5 minutes of great light in a day and if you’re filming while that happens you’ll probably miss the chance for stills. Some people manage the YouTube thing quite well like Nigel Danson but most of them don’t come away with photos as good as you’d expect from the conditions they had. If I were a YouTuber I’d want someone filming me leaving me to concentrate totally on stills

 

[ABTog]

It depends, if you go full in with all the drone footage and walking shots and you’re recording those while conditions are temporarily great for stills there’s a strong chance you’ll miss the very best shots. I’m paid as a photographer and video editor but honestly to do both at the same time there’s a massive conflict and it takes a different mindset. You might get 5 minutes of great light in a day and if you’re filming while that happens you’ll probably miss the chance for stills. Some people manage the YouTube thing quite well like Nigel Danson but most of them don’t come away with photos as good as you’d expect from the conditions they had. If I were a YouTuber I’d want someone filming me leaving me to concentrate totally on stills

There are some who do this. Thomas Heaton has done videos where he's had someone else filming, mostly when he's been on adventure trips with Brendan Van Son and they have Greg Snell along for filming duties.
Peter McKinnon also has someone else do a lot of his filming, but his videos are more to do with film making than photography and he's well paid enough to be able to afford to hire someone to film and edit with/for him.

 

[mxfun]

I don't - but I wonder if composition should come so hard for you.

For me, I don't like video as a medium. I prefer to read text, and to see stills. I don't watch these photography videos. I want to see pictures and read words. That's just me.

In my work, I revisit composition time and time again. I can instinctively put a tripod down and repeat a picture to the extent they overlap with each other and I can tell which grasses fall where (In certain shots). For me, this means I can solely focus on when to expose depending on light/shadows/clouds and how they make the scene look and feel. I wouldn't want to film a video doing it, but I could as there wouldn't be too much to think about as I know the compositions I want in advance.

I bet a lot of these dudes know the locations, compositions like the back of their hands and just wing it on the day working the presumption that "good enough" is all that matters to make money off the shot and video.

I think your perception of youtuber landscape photographers is a tad harsh and inaccurate ,as you've said , you don't like video as a medium so I take it your experience of watching how professional youtuber/photographers go about their business is minimal . If it was as easy and slapdash as you make it out to be everyone would be at it ........

 

[jerry12953]

. If it was as easy and slapdash as you make it out to be everyone would be at it ........

Sometimes it seems like just about everybody is......!

 

[mxfun]

Sometimes it seems like just about everybody is......!

The few I'm referring to make a good living from it and good on them

 

[jerry12953]

The few I'm referring to make a good living from it and good on them

I'm aware of several but I wonder if they genuinely do make a living from YouTube videos? Other than the opportunity for marketing other products they make possible.

 

[redhed17]

I'm aware of several but I wonder if they genuinely do make a living from YouTube videos? Other than the opportunity for marketing other products they make possible.

Isn't YouTube just part of a diversified business model people keep telling photographers to get!

Image sales (prints/calendars etc), books, YouTube, paid appearances, workshops, travel trips, sponsorships and paid work, if you can do any one of those as a photographer of whatever genre and make a living out if it, well done to you. The reality for many I think is doing a mix, and again, if you can make living at it, well done.

 

[jerry12953]

Agreed.

 

[mxfun]

I'm aware of several but I wonder if they genuinely do make a living from YouTube videos? Other than the opportunity for marketing other products they make possible.

I make money from my YT channel with zero effort that has 13k odd subscribers . There are a couple channels I regularly watch that have over 500k subs ,so yes I do think they make good money from their channels . One other channel I watch (nothing to do with photography ) they make 6 figure sum/annum

 

[Stuart Mc]

I can maybe clear up a few misconceptions re: YouTube (bored waiting for the Mrs to put the kids to bed):

• Very few landscape photographers on YouTube (if any) make a living directly off the platform itself, ad revenue even on decent sized channels (30/40/50k+ subs) will be modest at best vs an actual living wage, but it's a great base - watch time and views far more important than subs. Most income will be largely made up from sponsored videos, workshop tours, educational content and chiefly (why there's a huge push from many to sell these) calendars or books. They easily have the highest return vs outlay in comparison with anything else. One vlogger who many of you will know, I speak to regularly and the profit made from selling his calendar each year would probably shock you. One's ability to cultivate a following on there, then sell those other products to that following is crucial (much like any other way to make money from photography I guess).
• It's a time suck - literally anyone I speak to who does YouTube all say the same thing, it's a pain in the arse at times and definitely compromises getting the best images. As others point out, if the light is kicking off most if not all bin the video and fit it in retrospectively. Even then, it's a huge pain as the 'story' still has to flow as viewers often place higher value on being entertained than if the images are any good, certainly my experience anyway. Viewer base is likely to be largely casual/ novice and it's why often fairly mediocre photographers on there are held in higher esteem than they should be.
• OP asked can you be great at both - almost certainly not if you’re planning to start photography alongside a channel (though it depends on your definition of 'great'). Top of my head I can think of 4 maybe 5 YouTube landscape vloggers (and I mean the ones who concentrate most of their time on YouTube not sporadic creators) I'd consider top bracket, the rest are a massive range. Creating coherent and entertaining videos has literally nothing to do with good photography, too many folk who watch these videos confuse the two and either can't tell the difference or simply aren't exposed to enough high quality photography in other places to have any frame of reference. I think much of this probably comes back to people subconsciously equating "if it's on TV it must be good" when in reality anyone can pitch up on YouTube and get started.

 

[jerry12953]

I can maybe clear up a few misconceptions re: YouTube (bored waiting for the Mrs to put the kids to bed):

• Very few landscape photographers on YouTube (if any) make a living directly off the platform itself, ad revenue even on decent sized channels (30/40/50k+ subs) will be modest at best vs an actual living wage, but it's a great base - watch time and views far more important than subs. Most income will be largely made up from sponsored videos, workshop tours, educational content and chiefly (why there's a huge push from many to sell these) calendars or books. They easily have the highest return vs outlay in comparison with anything else. One vlogger who many of you will know, I speak to regularly and the profit made from selling his calendar each year would probably shock you. One's ability to cultivate a following on there, then sell those other products to that following is crucial (much like any other way to make money from photography I guess).
• It's a time suck - literally anyone I speak to who does YouTube all say the same thing, it's a pain in the arse at times and definitely compromises getting the best images. As others point out, if the light is kicking off most if not all bin the video and fit it in retrospectively. Even then, it's a huge pain as the 'story' still has to flow as viewers often place higher value on being entertained than if the images are any good, certainly my experience anyway. Viewer base is likely to be largely casual/ novice and it's why often fairly mediocre photographers on there are held in higher esteem than they should be.
• OP asked can you be great at both - almost certainly not if you’re planning to start photography alongside a channel (though it depends on your definition of 'great'). Top of my head I can think of 4 maybe 5 YouTube landscape vloggers (and I mean the ones who concentrate most of their time on YouTube not sporadic creators) I'd consider top bracket, the rest are a massive range. Creating coherent and entertaining videos has literally nothing to do with good photography, too many folk who watch these videos confuse the two and either can't tell the difference or simply aren't exposed to enough high quality photography in other places to have any frame of reference. I think much of this probably comes back to people subconsciously equating "if it's on TV it must be good" when in reality anyone can pitch up on YouTube and get started.

Really educational post. Thanks.

I've absolutely no intention of starting to do it myself but I do watch the odd video and wonder about the practicalities of it. One of the names mentioned in an earlier threads brings out some interesting points about photography but in my opinion is a rather average photographer. It must be incredibly time consuming what with two of everything plus the drone, and you must need to be very well-organised to capture it all and then put it all together.

 

[wibbly]

I’m not a You Tuber at all but do enjoy quite a few of those who are and do think it’s possible to concentrate on both at the same time.

There’s plenty of very good landscape photographers out there with successful You Tube channels, and the quality of their images whilst they are creating content for a video don’t appear to suffer.

I did however hear a story about a particular You Tuber who provides expensive landscape photo workshops who spent more time videoing himself and editing for his channel that some of his attendees didn’t believe they got the best of him or value for money.

 

[Stuart Mc]

Really educational post. Thanks.

I've absolutely no intention of starting to do it myself but I do watch the odd video and wonder about the practicalities of it. One of the names mentioned in an earlier threads brings out some interesting points about photography but in my opinion is a rather average photographer. It must be incredibly time consuming what with two of everything plus the drone, and you must need to be very well-organised to capture it all and then put it all together.

Cheers, from my own point of view it's incredibly time consuming both out there and in post, a 15 min vid takes anything up to about 10 hours to produce excluding the actual shoot itself - like anything it gets easier with practice but it's still a pain to be honest, though for professional landscape photography it's become pretty key to have at least a presence on there. I've been dragged on to the platform kicking and screaming to be honest after being stills-only for years, so I'd consider myself something of a sporadic creator but even in the couple of years I've been doing it it's certainly helped my business in some areas.

I did however hear a story about a particular You Tuber who provides expensive landscape photo workshops who spent more time videoing himself and editing for his channel that some of his attendees didn’t believe they got the best of him or value for money.

Sadly that happens frequently and is something I find absolutely abhorrent, and something I'd never dream of doing. Though I'd be inclined to say that if you book onto a workshop tour with these people who have form for doing this (the video evidence is there lol) then you kind of know what you're getting in to. No excuse though and entirely unprofessional.

 

[cardiff_gareth]

This thread has been very enlightening to read through. I've made a few YT videos and subscribe to all of the YT photographers mentioned, as well as a few others, some are either totally separate to the forementioned or work with them on workshops.

It's hard! To walk around with an action cam in hand and talk to the camera, sound natural, not stutter your words etc is really hard. I made a video that never aired (Pentax autumn comp that I saw on YT but only for a select few) that was set in a park in the centre of Cardiff. With every passer by watching it got harder and harder! Then comes the editing of the videos that just takes forever to do and something I find tricky.

My new years resolution is to get out and shoot more images, as for the past 3 years for uni, all I've shot is documentary imagery, and the shooting more images will come with the add on of making more YT videos that document those shoots. For me I see YT part of my business, taking that next step to gain a better online following that'll then hopefully generate future leads, work, workshops etc, all of which will then mean photography is my full time job.

Photography is a very cut throat business and I'm finding more and more Joe Bloggs Photography setting up and making FB or other social media pages and offering their services. Having a good online presence is key, a website alone no matter how good it is won't get you where you want to be. Social media such as FB, Vero, Instagram etc are all good but they'll get likes but likes dont put food on the table and make your business viable and profitable. YouTube is such a good outlet for interacting with an audience and putting you on an international stage and giving you that exposure so your head is above the parapet.

Those who knock YT shooters and say their work is so so I think say this with a slight tad of jealously. They're the ones making it their full time job, making their business profitable, producing books, heading workshops, being sponsored etc.

 

[keety]

So do you think that being a Youtuber is detrimental to being a Landscape Photographer? They're both different mediums and I struggle to see how you can master both at the same time.

The short answer is "practice"

You'll see the evolution of peoples channels over time, the photography normally starts out OK and the video production normally lags behind.

As they get more videos and what not under their bet they start to get a following... once they get to the point where they can do it semi full time and upload videos you'll find they're going out once or twice a week.

The quality of both will increase as their technical skills improve and also the chance of them getting great conditions improves simply because they're going out more often than you probably are.

You'll find that you get to a point where you can do both pretty much without thinking too much when you're in the heat of the moment.

 

[TimHughes]

Much easier if you have someone else with you taking care of the filming and sound so you can concentrate on what you're doing and explaining that on camera. I don't think it's possible to give top performance in both at the same time all on your own.

 

[keety]

I don't think it's possible to give top performance in both at the same time all on your own.

There's a wealth of Landscape photography YouTube channels out there that would probably prove otherwise.

 

[TimHughes]

There's a wealth of Landscape photography YouTube channels out there that would probably prove otherwise.

Thanks, I'll take a closer look! Hats off to them, not easy to do!

 

[ecoleman]

He's ok - but there's lots of padding etc. I get why folk like them, but a 20min video to see three stills, a Volvo 4x4 and some washed out British scenery. I feel a short paragraph and image would do more for me.

You know, you don't HAVE to watch them.

 

[ecoleman]

I have assumed that the landscape youtubers (at least the one who make a living from it) do their "proper work" while not making Youtube videos, and the youtube videos are primarily marketing, made when it's appropriate to do so.

Most professional landscape photographers don't make a living from the images they take. Sure they capture a few portfolio images here and there to fill a calendar for the year. Most of their income comes from Workshops, as well as sponsor deals and a bit of ad revenue from YT

Youtube is just a marketing tool.

It's just like the get rich quick schemes. Nobody is getting rich by doing what they teach. They are getting rich from idiots buying tutorials on how to get rich quick.

 

[myotis]

Most professional landscape photographers don't make a living from the images they take. Sure they capture a few portfolio images here and there to fill a calendar for the year. Most of their income comes from Workshops, as well as sponsor deals and a bit of ad revenue from YT

Youtube is just a marketing tool.

It's just like the get rich quick schemes. Nobody is getting rich by doing what they teach. They are getting rich from idiots buying tutorials on how to get rich quick.

When I said make a living from it, I didn't just mean selling their images, but selling their courses, their books on "how to use lightroom" and all the other things that go together to "making a living" in photography.

The youtubing seems to be an important marketing element in this for many (some), but it's this marketing element that I had assumed made it worthwhile, as well as providing a small income from advertising and possibly sponsorship.

 

[SFTPhotography]

You know, you don't HAVE to watch them.

I don't, I get the odd snippet sent to me or see them embedded in the forum and I think.......jeez.

 

[smr]

If you're making 80k views per video is that not an income in and of itself ?

There's a guy on YT who has around 500k subscribers, doesn't sell any calendars or do workshops, or any books - his sole income, from what I can see is from YT and his audiences hit around 50-100k per video - some getting 1-2 million views per video.

I have no idea how much he makes but let's put it this way, in the 5 years since he started out from a modest house in America he has since bought a huge office space for his channel and a house in the countryside surrounded by about 10 acres - all due to YT.

I was under the impression that 80k views per video was getting on for a very decent income, but what I've read here sort of contradicts that.

 

[ScottT]

I follow a bloke called Micael Widell on YT (macro photographer) he has around 80K subscribers and gets anything from 5K to 600K views per video. He put out a video last week an update on his year, in it he said he had earned $26K from YT in 2022.
While $26K might not be a lot to many on here, in my semi retired state i wouldnt say no to that, throw in a bit of extra work, workshops, calendars, e-books etc and its not a bad living i guess.

 

[rob-nikon]

I follow a bloke called Micael Widell on YT (macro photographer) he has around 80K subscribers and gets anything from 5K to 600K views per video. He put out a video last week an update on his year, in it he said he had earned $26K from YT in 2022.
While $26K might not be a lot to many on here, in my semi retired state i wouldnt say no to that, throw in a bit of extra work, workshops, calendars, e-books etc and its not a bad living i guess.

I’d guess that £26k isn’t pure profit as a wage though. There’s likely going to be production costs of the videos and taxes to pay etc taken from that figure.

Production of landscape photography YT videos is going to be quite expensive on travel & accommodation in addition to video and photography equipment costs.

 

[Stuart Mc]

I was under the impression that 80k views per video was getting on for a very decent income, but what I've read here sort of contradicts that.

Ball park figure - I have a video which has 25k views, after YouTube has taken its cut, (before tax) its made about £100. A lot of factors go into how much you make from ad revenue but if you used that as a rough guide, you can do the maths from there.

You’ve got to be doing seriously high numbers to make a great living off ad revenue alone.

The sort of numbers you mention probably would be enough to sustain a reasonable living on its own, the thing for landscape photography is those sort of numbers are virtually unattainable for pretty much everyone, especially now the market on there is more saturated than ever and the interest in the genre has long since peaked.

 

[redhed17]

You can get an idea of YT income on this Social Blade website. Some YouTubers will also have the individual videos sponsored as well, such as the seemingly ubiquitous Squarespace. And they may be sponsored for some of the gear they use. There is also Patreon and the like, where people can donate money too. Some take advantage of that, some don't. It can all add up though, and means whilst YT is another income source, it is not just the video itself for income, though it all follows a successful YT channel.

I subscribe to a few video game YouTubers, and as well as the above, they may livestream, and during their streams people may pay for Super Chat's. People also donate too. It is stunning how much they seem to be making according to Social Blade, but photographers earn a fraction of what they can earn.

I’d guess that £26k isn’t pure profit as a wage though. There’s likely going to be production costs of the videos and taxes to pay etc taken from that figure.

Production of landscape photography YT videos is going to be quite expensive on travel & accommodation in addition to video and photography equipment costs.

As with any business, for some expenses, money can be saved with the Tax system. I could definitely live quite comfortably on 26k in my current situation. Sadly, I don't have the urge or the talent for a YT channel. Good luck to those that can sustain a living from Photography, whether that includes YT and the associated revenue streams or not.

 

[tom dinning]

In other words, do you think it is possible to take the very best Landscape Photographs you can at a given location, in given conditions, whilst also capturing it all on video and talking to another Camera at the same time ?

I think back to one of my Landscape Photographs taken in North Wales where, as is usual with Landscape Photography, you are reacting to the light and the lay of the land in front of you. It's all very well knowing where the light will fall on the land but seeing how the light falls on the land is an altogether different matrix.

I hadn't been here before, I had no idea, and I was looking for a unique composition - something which hadn't been shot before but from which I could take satisfaction.

This particular composition I had spent around 30-45 minutes tweaking... I wanted everything to be absolutely on point. This involved meticulous alterations in placement, Tripod height, angles, the effect of a CPL on the given composition from one millimetre to the next and then the utmost concentration in terms of focusing, composition, visual flow and so on and so forth.

Had I been chatting away to a Camera behind or adjacent to me I am convinced I'd have never got that image.

So do you think that being a Youtuber is detrimental to being a Landscape Photographer? They're both different mediums and I struggle to see how you can master both at the same time.

Men can’t do 2 things at the same time. It’s hardly possible for the genre to scratch an itch and shoot simultaneously.
Might I suggest forming a relationship with a woman who can photograph to your liking and she can take over one of the activities. Since women are proposed to be able to do many things at the same time, she can shoot, scratch you and tell you you’re a shifty photographer at the same time.
Stick to what you do well. When your ready, give that up and start the next thing. That’s the rule for men.

 

[ScottT]

Production of landscape photography YT videos is going to be quite expensive on travel & accommodation in addition to video and photography equipment costs.

Its not going to be anymore expensive than just going out and taking pictures is it?
Everyone on here has a camera (or 2) and a mobile phone, thats more than enough equipment to get started, its how Tom Heaton started. If you drive 200 miles just to get a certain shot, which many do, it doesnt cost any more to shoot some close up video on your phone and some longer shots on your camera then put them together in a video, perhaps splash out on a selfie stick so you can get the walking around shots as well, its hardly breaking the bank.
Converting from just being a landscape photographer into a landscape vlogger with a YT channel the main cost to get started is time, get there a bit earlier, stay a bit later, edit the video.

 

[jerry12953]

Ball park figure - I have a video which has 25k views, after YouTube has taken its cut, (before tax) its made about £100. A lot of factors go into how much you make from ad revenue but if you used that as a rough guide, you can do the maths from there.

You’ve got to be doing seriously high numbers to make a great living off ad revenue alone.

The sort of numbers you mention probably would be enough to sustain a reasonable living on its own, the thing for landscape photography is those sort of numbers are virtually unattainable for pretty much everyone, especially now the market on there is more saturated than ever and the interest in the genre has long since peaked.

Good to hear some info from someone who is actually doing it! Thanks.

 

[MarkWalker]

Very subjective, my view is the majority on Landscape Photographers on YouTube are not Great, but I wish them all the best, love their enthusiasm and as long as they are producing engaging content, I'll continue to watch.

 

[Neil Burnell]

Of course it's possible, all depends on time, application and talent.

 

[TCR4x4]

YouTube can be lucrative.. my channel has 40k subs, but I havent really touched it for years. I still get about £80 a month. I was getting about £250 a month when I was active.
I’ve made just under £22k since 2011. My most popular video has 1.6m views and has made around £5.5k since 2011.


If you put the time and effort in, you could very easily get good money, but it is a hell of a lot of work to keep it going.

 

[TimHughes]

YouTube can be lucrative.. my channel has 40k subs, but I havent really touched it for years. I still get about £80 a month. I was getting about £250 a month when I was active.
I’ve made just under £22k since 2011. My most popular video has 1.6m views and has made around £5.5k since 2011.


If you put the time and effort in, you could very easily get good money, but it is a hell of a lot of work to keep it going.

View attachment 378934View attachment 378935

Thanks for the intel

 

[cardiff_gareth]

YouTube can be lucrative.. my channel has 40k subs, but I havent really touched it for years. I still get about £80 a month. I was getting about £250 a month when I was active.
I’ve made just under £22k since 2011. My most popular video has 1.6m views and has made around £5.5k since 2011.


If you put the time and effort in, you could very easily get good money, but it is a hell of a lot of work to keep it going.

View attachment 378934View attachment 378935

Just Googled and found you. I used to have a Disco 2 we used to greenlane back in the day. I used to be a member of the Discovery Owners Club and Mud Club. When The twins came alone I had to sell her and get something more practical. Miss those days, leaking alpine lights, leaking sunroofs, replacing boot floor pans and inner wheel arches. The Discovery 2 were so easy to work on.

 

[TCR4x4]

Just Googled and found you. I used to have a Disco 2 we used to greenlane back in the day. I used to be a member of the Discovery Owners Club and Mud Club. When The twins came alone I had to sell her and get something more practical. Miss those days, leaking alpine lights, leaking sunroofs, replacing boot floor pans and inner wheel arches. The Discovery 2 were so easy to work on.

That’s my other channel, that one makes no money at all.

I still have my d2, but it’s not moved since 2020 and is looking rather sorry for itself. I keep meaning to fix it up and get it back on the road, but time and money….