HELP! Beginner to professional...?

A

AnnaRoss

Messages
2
Name
Anna
Edit My Images
No
Hello!
I have a - kind of hypothetical question. I'm quite intrigued as to how people 'become' photographers, so to speak. I realise to start with practice and probably classes and things help...but what about after that? Once you're reasonably competent, where to you go from there?
I essentially want to know how a person would get from just 'a person with a camera' to the point when they're taking photos professionally...specifically with having their own exhibitions, AND specifically doing portraits.
Really, I want to know the stages AFTER their training and such. It just intrigues me :) Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.
Anna x
 
why do you want to become a professional?

Go and take lots of pictures. SO many pictures. You need to be doing that first, the professional bit will follow.
 
A friend has just finished his degree in photography and is hoping to turn pro. From what I can gather he is trying to get work with established pros to gain experience and build his porfolio. He then hopes to eventually go out on his own but it seems that after qualifying then like most professions you serve your time working for someone honing your skills until ready to go it alone.

John.
 
Anna, the bit that sets a talented amatuer apart from a professional photographer isn't the photography skills. It's the business skills. A mediocre photographer with excellent business skills will generally do better as a professional photographer than a stunning photographer with poor business skills.
 
Pro and good are not necessarily the same thing. Art and Pro are not necessarily the same thing. A Pro is someone who makes a living from photography, they're less likely to be having exhibitions dedicated to their work as the 'bread and butter' work of photography is often rather dull and unexciting stuff (product shots corporate, registry office weddings in the rain etc). An art phootgrapher isn't likely to be makin ga living from it unless he's very good and very well known, but he may well produce some of the most beautiful work you'll ever see.

Get out there, take photos, decide what you want to get out of photography and go from there. :thumbs:
 
Wot Alastair said.

There is no defined `way` into pro snappery. Quite a few just sort of drift in, beginning with selling a few snaps to friends, then finding friends of those friends start commissioning work, gaining confidence to go out and look for work - this is an important bit - rather than waiting for it to arrive on the doorstep. Then one day you find that photography is your main source of income. That's more or less what happened to me.

Qualifications can be useful, but the end result is the only thing that really matters - are your shots a bit better than the opposition? And can you find an endless stream of customers who want to give you money for photography?
 
I was just looking at a website of a guy who claims to be a pro photographer.
Quite franky I was astonsihed at the quality of the work. It was the kind of stuff I was producing 7 years ago when I hadnt long been using DSLR's. Im not one to ever blow my own trumpet, but my work really is miles ahead of the images on his website.

The reason why he is a pro?

He has a niche product, buisness skill, the location and equipment to pull it off.

If he didnt have those, he;d just be another medicore photographer.
 
Professional, who cares.

Patrick Moore is an amatuer astronomer, with a greater knowlege and skill than many pros, I am willing to be there are many here who's photographic skills would knock most so called pros for six, but, who do not want to be.

It has nothing to do with equipment, I have more than some and less than others, I have been into photography for 35+ years and have given many talks but am am no pro never wanted to be and never will.

I agree with TCR4x4 above, except that it has nothing to do with equipment, look at TCRs photos, superb.

You also need to see a photograph, all the equipment in the world can not make you take a good photograph, give Roger Hicks a 30 year old Rollei and he will take a "photograph" give someone with no skill or artistic ability the best camera available and you will get a snap.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Professional, who cares.

Patrick Moore is an amatuer astronomer, with a greater knowlege and skill than many pros, I am willing to be there are many here who's photographic skills would knock most so called pros for six, but, who do not want to be.

It has nothing to do with equipment...
Click to expand...

It has to do with where your money comes from. Patrick Moore is a professional astronomer, in that astronomy provides his income (although he may in fact be a bus conductor who does a bit of astronomy on the side - I am happy to be put right on this). Anyone who derives much of their income from photography is per se a professional photographer.

Equipment doesn't really come into it, I agree. I once illustrated a published and paid for travel piece using only shots from a €80 p&s.

Cameras don't take photographs - photographers take photographs.
 
Last edited:
When I said right equipment, I wasn't referring to the cameras.
His market requires other specialist equipment that most people wouldn't own.

Just to avoid confusion.
 
jon ryan said:
It has to do with where your money comes from. Patrick Moore is a professional astronomer, in that astronomy provides his income (although he may in fact be a bus conductor who does a bit of astronomy on the side - I am happy to be put right on this). Anyone who derives much of their income from photography is per se a professional photographer.

Equipment doesn't really come into it, I agree. I once illustrated a published and paid for travel piece using only shots from a €80 p&s.

Cameras don't take photographs - photographers take photographs.
Click to expand...

Sorry Patrick is NOT a professional as afriend of his I can assure you that even he says he has NEVER had a full time job, he has no guaranteed weekly/monthly income therefore he states clearly he is not a professional but an am.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Sorry Patrick is NOT a professional as afriend of his I can assure you that even he says he has NEVER had a full time job, he has no guaranteed weekly/monthly income therefore he states clearly he is not a professional but an am.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You know him, I don't.

What is his main source of income?
 
Last edited:
Keebsuk said:
What has this thread got to do with Patrick Moore?!!!

Andy
Click to expand...

It gives JSER another chance to mention he's a friend of Patrick Moore
 
AnnaRoss said:
Hello!
I have a - kind of hypothetical question. I'm quite intrigued as to how people 'become' photographers, so to speak. I realise to start with practice and probably classes and things help...but what about after that? Once you're reasonably competent, where to you go from there?
I essentially want to know how a person would get from just 'a person with a camera' to the point when they're taking photos professionally...specifically with having their own exhibitions, AND specifically doing portraits.
Really, I want to know the stages AFTER their training and such. It just intrigues me :) Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.
Anna x
Click to expand...

This is a huge subject Anna, as you can imagine. The road to self-sustaining professional is a long and usually rocky one. This article on my Blog may help to address many of your questions: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=1166

There are other articles under the For Photographers category which might also interest you. As the others have said, being a good photographer is only one part of the equation - it's all the other skills which usually determine whether a business fails or not.
 
TBH it's pretty easy.

All you have to do is gamble your entire future on making enough money to live from what most people think is fun. Quit your job and watch you savings disappear in a pile of small boxes. Work 60/70/80/90 hours a week on both taking pictures and business. Realise you're spending more and more time chasing business and less of the doing the photography bit.

Then sit back and watch as hundreds of amateurs profess they could do far far better. Then watch in horror as they actually start to take work away by not charging clients a living wage (or often anything at all).

Then constantly be undermined and insulted by people who believe that they should be the arbiters of what your work should be worth. Have abuse hurled at you for actually daring to charge money for high quality work. See as rates go down and the general standard of photography in the world plummets at a time when it should be soaring. Notice that every single market goes the same way of wanting everything for nothing but being prepared to put up with utter garbage on the grounds that nobody cares anymore.

Simple stuff. Pretty much like every creative industry.

TBH in 20 years I think we'll be teaching about professional photographers in history classes. Like they cover coopers and farriers and loom operators.
 
The answer to what Jonathan describes is to ensure you set yourself apart from cheap newcomers. There is and always will be a market for high quality photography. Seek out only those clients who appreciate your skills and offerings. Make sure the work you produce is a far cry from anything your clients, or lesser photographers, could hope to match. Offer the highest quality products which the public cannot access. Think about what you can do to raise your profile and your credibility. And if you experience what Jonathan has just described then wish them well and walk away.
 
Thankyou everyone :) Some very interesting and helpful points, I really appreciate it. Also, thanks to Lindsay... your Q&A thingy WAS pretty useful, so thanks for the link!
x
PS. I'm still open to anyone else's opinion too, haha (:
 
Alastair said:
Anna, the bit that sets a talented amatuer apart from a professional photographer isn't the photography skills. It's the business skills. A mediocre photographer with excellent business skills will generally do better as a professional photographer than a stunning photographer with poor business skills.
Click to expand...

True.......unfortunately.

The gift of the gab also helps......again nothing to do with skill as a photographer.
 
AnnaRoss said:
Hello!
I have a - kind of hypothetical question. I'm quite intrigued as to how people 'become' photographers, so to speak. I realise to start with practice and probably classes and things help...but what about after that? Once you're reasonably competent, where to you go from there?
I essentially want to know how a person would get from just 'a person with a camera' to the point when they're taking photos professionally...specifically with having their own exhibitions, AND specifically doing portraits.
Really, I want to know the stages AFTER their training and such. It just intrigues me :) Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.
Anna x
Click to expand...

I became a pro by chance although looking back, it was inevitable I was going to end doing photography....

I did graphics courses and went to uni to do wildlife illustration but ended up doing more photography for resource material, so swapped courses and did a degree in photography. Anyway, left university, did a few jobs related to graphic design and then landed an editorial job on a carp fishing magazine. Photography was part of the job, and the interviewer (the editor) recognised the potential of having a 'trained' photographer on board.

I've gone from being magazine biatch through to editor of other titles, moving over to becoming head of photography about 2.5 years ago. Being a salaried pro is actually very nice because you aren't dependant on earning a crust by finding the work; it's just like any other paid job. However, there is always a pressure to maintain your viability and worth within an organisation (as there is with any position) but at times I have to fight hard because no one understands photography so it's difficult to encourage others to buy into my thinking.

To be thruthful, I loved learning the basics at university and got some good experience, especially in the studio and with 5x4" cameras. But times have changed and I've had to re-learn a lot of what I was taught to apply it to a digital workflow. The fact that I got a degree (albeit a 2:2) got me that first proper editorial job, but what I've learned sine then eclipses what I learned at university many times over.

I suppose I was at the right place at the right time but I have also made myself valuable to the company as time has passed. We have many newcomers to my company who are fully aware that they have to take photos (the journalists have to do some shooting) but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number who've come in and taken even a vague interest in photography. I definitely see photography as something you have to want to do - doing it for the sake of it or because it's the expected next step (and that includes going pro), isn't the right route. I'm just lucky I landed the jobs I did but there's no doubt that I would have been doing a photography job regardless once I left university....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top