Dean Soapbox Killer Photo wrote:
From who's, and what, perspective are you asking?

If there are 4 photographers in any given market, those 4 will certainly have more work offers then if there are 400 photographers available in that market.

So, for those people shopping around for photographers there can never be enough, good to have lots of choices...but for those photographers that are trying to make a living, I would say yes, there can be too many.

I heard a statistic that in NYC alone are 45 - 60,000 photographers, mostly part time, competing for the same jobs.

It is tough to make a living in this town unless you are kinda famous in the industry, unless you do weddings... so I heard...

Garry k wrote:
Less PHotographers means more opportunities

I think many of us from the pre digital age would agree

Agreed!

ArtistryImage wrote:

so totally agree... lots more work for vanity services... i.e. hair & make-up

Not sure if that is correct... because the paying jobs that pay for MUA services are limited and most of those excess photographers don't appreciate the services of a good MUA.

Digital Czar wrote:

While a large part of this is true, Adams also had created two things. First an impeccable product with his images. Second, the "Zone System" which added a mystique...one that came of a necessity he saw(no one else invented it did they?) for he knew he couldn't change the light, only try an wait for "good light" to do the photograph he saw and with that invented the zone system as a means of controlling what he got! Theoretically that was a negative that printed a full tonal range(which he controlled based on how he wanted things to look) at a minimum exposure time(as in the time for clear film base). After that, he could do whatever darkroom adjustments in printing he wanted, but he got to that point faster and more controllable.

So he created an "aura" if you will around his work in addition to being good images...which was the product that was marketed. Same, btw, could be said for Avedon, Penn, Halsman, Kane, and a few others though they all had distinctly different vision and subject matter....and POV.

richardson certainly invented something too..

more photographers = cheaper equipment.. rejoice

udor wrote:
I heard a statistic that in NYC alone are 45 - 60,000 photographers, mostly part time, competing for the same jobs.

It is tough to make a living in this town unless you are kinda famous in the industry, unless you do weddings... so I heard...

I know a photographer from New York.  He does not work only in New York but has worked all over the country.  He is now outside of the country working.  I just saw a beautiful photo that he took in Thailand.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
and that graph implied that marketing is much more important that skill / experience and the whole rounded package.

No... the graph does NOT imply that!

You must have the skills, nobody ever denied that, skill is extremely important... the point is that if you have the skill and you don't know how to market that skill... you won't have commercial success to make a living.

Point is that there is a tremendous amount of photographers out there that have great skill, great vision, understand light/shadow, composition, have decent gear... but can't make a living for themselves because they don't know how to market themselves.

Robert Jewett wrote:
Photographers, sure spend a lot of time whining about the flood of newb's.  You know, I've never seen a model thread where they opine, "Gee.  Everyone thinks they can model now.  No cost of entry, internet and networking sites to promote yourself..."  Maybe we should ask them how they deal with the competition?

Well... how many of those work for free, do TF and work full time in a profession that supports their life and lets them indulge in being the subject of art creation.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I know a photographer from New York.  He does not work only in New York but has worked all over the country.  He is now outside of the country working.  I just saw a beautiful photo that he took in Thailand.

Which is great marketing... I have been hired by a large firm in DelRay Beach, FL and flown in to shoot their collection... and I was "the New York photographer"...

udor wrote:
Point is that there is a tremendous amount of photographers out there that have great skill, great vision, understand light/shadow, composition, have decent gear... but can't make a living for themselves because they don't know how to market themselves.

and my point is that there are loads of crappy photographers out there with no idea whatsoever what they are doing, but with the belief that their failure is down to their marketing.

They then spend loads of time and money with various marketing companies, and eventually crash and burn because their work / service is so bad.

In the meantime the customer has got totally fed up and fustrated trawling through all these crappy photographers, and I know because I hear it all the time.

and its bad for the whole industry that if you believe this and instead of improving your work, products and customer service you instead put all your efforts and money into marketing.

No one is saying that as a quality photographer you don't need some basic advertising and promotion but sadly more may be needed to push to the front of all these crappy photographers who shouldn't even be advertising as photographers in the first place.

Overall the only people winning are the marketing people.

Dean Soapbox Killer Photo wrote:
From who's, and what, perspective are you asking?

If there are 4 photographers in any given market, those 4 will certainly have more work offers then if there are 400 photographers available in that market.

So, for those people shopping around for photographers there can never be enough, good to have lots of choices...but for those photographers that are trying to make a living, I would say yes, there can be too many.

Absolutely!!!!

Sourcelight Photography wrote:
Yes, we definitely need more, more, more, and more photographers.  The sooner the rate card hits the bottom, the sooner I can finally, officially, retire from actually shooting photos and go full-time into teaching all these new pros how to focus their cameras.

You might want to talk to Don Giannatti about that.  Workshop opportunities are starting to dry up because of Creative Live and Sandy Puc U.  You might not agree with what's going on there, but eventually there will be a select few teaching workshops...all over the web.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
Photographers as in hobby photographers?

Professional photographers?

Or photographers who are awful, yet think they are a professional?
Well there is already way, way too many of them. Even one is too many.

^YES^

udor wrote:

Not sure if that is correct... because the paying jobs that pay for MUA services are limited and most of those excess photographers don't appreciate the services of a good MUA.

You are absolutely right...most "photographers" don't understand what a good MUA/hairstylist can provide, or have the skill level to take advantage of really good prep talent who work as a team in a session.

udor wrote:

Well... how many of those work for free, do TF and work full time in a profession that supports their life and lets them indulge in being the subject of art creation.

Yes..and spend the money we do for equipment, marketing, and education.  All of these things have a cost associated with them.  While I understand there are costs to a real modeling career, they don't come close to approaching what a photographer spends just to stay ahead and in business.

D-Light wrote:
Disagree.

From everyone's point of view, there's an optimum number. It helps keep competition lively, quality high, service good and prices resonable.

Too many photographers brings down prices and with them the quality of the product and service.

Correct. Also the consumer becomes unable to tell the difference until it is too late. When that happens it can be that all photographers get tarnished with the same brush.

Long before digital changed the photographic landscape there was a call in the UK for a unified process to validate professional photographers and for such validation to be a pre-requisite for trading. This did not happen, although there are organisations which accredit people who have shown they can produce images of a professional standard. Many of the people selling their photographic services have not even heard of these organisations, let alone become members or been accredited. Some of them would pass the validation process without any problem, many would not.

Photography by Riddell wrote:

This graph is a really good example of why so many useless photographers think they they have such a great chance of becoming a professional photographer.

If you follow this path you may make a little bit of money, but ultimately you'll be a shyster, and most likely soon fail, with lots of angry customers very disappointed with the quality of your work

However if the quality of your work is consistantly stunning and you have just general people and business skills you'll have people coming to you without having to spend time and money marketing.

There is truth on both sides of this argument.

KWDPhoto wrote:
While I understand there are costs to a real modeling career, they don't come close to approaching what a photographer spends just to stay ahead and in business.

Ah, the old "i spent thousands on equipment therefore blah blah" argument.......

This should be interesting

intense puppy wrote:

Ah, the old "i spent thousands on equipment therefore blah blah" argument.......

This should be interesting

No need to get snipey...you can agree or disagree...everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
Sorry to suprise you, but I have been in business over 20 years and doing pretty nicely thank you.

Yes, this is a massive shock actually, how anyone with business experience longer than 20 minutes can have such a misguided concept of how business works. And while you're doing "pretty nice", I'm doing EXCEPTIONALLY well. This year was my best year ever for my photography business. And 2011 was better than 2010, and 2010 was better than 2009...all the way back to 1997 when I got my first business license as a photographer.

But even then, I was no stranger to being in business...I literally grew up in it. My parents owned their first business when I was 6 years old and started getting me involved with it, even at a young age. They sold it, and subsequently created, built-up, and sold several other companies as well...all successful. Before I was 18, I had already been immersed in sales, marketing, import-export, retail operations, wholesaling, merchandising, customer service...the whole works. After going to college for Business and Marketing I paid my way though college not by working for someone else, but by working for myself. When I was 22 I started my first business with a friend and by the time I was 24 I had eleven full-time employees working for me. I sold my portion out of the business to my partner two years later and I used that money to launch a few other companies on my own, one of which later became my photography business. Over the last 15 years of being a professional photographer I've owned several other companies as well and currently own two others, both of which are quite successful in their own right. So before you go swinging your dick around here as if you actually had a clue on how business worked, at least have a basic knowledge of who you're talking to.

And I've always put the product, customer service and satisfaction way, way, way before marketing.

I'm very happy for you. Now try amping up your sales and your marketing and then see what your company will do. Nobody is ever saying that having a shitty product with great marketing is a great way to do business. I don't know where you ever got that impression. A lousy product is a lousy product, no matter how you market it, but with a good product with good marketing and exceptional salesmanship evolves good products into GREAT products. That's how a market works. If you have ever bothered to read anything about macroeconomics, you'd know that. But hey, what do all those Nobel laureates know, right?

Its this attitude that marketing is king which has largely contributed to the world financally going down the tubes.

Now that is one big pile of shit!

Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:

Yup, I am 100% with you on this one. One can spam the "market" with advertising as much as one likes in an attempt to sell a crap product, but sooner or later, they all crash and burn

I absolutely love you and PBR assumption that those who market have crap products. But those who don't market offer the highest quality product.

A little self-serving don't you think?

Nobody ever stated that a crappy product, marketed heavily, is going to succeed. If you're going to compare then compare apples to apples. We're talking about all things being equal...as in the quality of work being equal, the person with superior marketing, sales and business acumen is going to succeed. And that you can have possess the greatest photographic skills and talent of any photographer and you will go nowhere without marketing knowledge.

Riddell made the statement that people who use marketing are shysters offering subpar work and relying on marketing to save them. Nobody even alluded to that. He used it to further his agenda that quality product alone will jettison one to financial rewards.

The irony is that he and you both use marketing to further your brand. We all use marketing or we wouldn't be on MM or posting our images anywhere. Facebook is marketing. It's a little hypocritical to say marketers are shysters trying to sell you a bill of goods when you're saying it on an internet networking site that is a marketing vehicle.

I notice he's backed off from that and now admits marketing will indeed further the success of a quality product.

Ken Williams Photo wrote:

You might want to talk to Don Giannatti about that.  Workshop opportunities are starting to dry up because of Creative Live and Sandy Puc U.  You might not agree with what's going on there, but eventually there will be a select few teaching workshops...all over the web.

Could happen, I suppose, but right now, workshops and private lessons are among the few services I offer that still bring in regular, undiluted income.  I also offer on-line education, but people who can't teach themselves by reading a manual aren't usually any better at learning from a stock video.  They prefer the personal attention of face-to-face training.

We'll see...

Robert Jewett wrote:
No cost of entry...competition[/b]

Those photographers are the ones who have no idea where and what they're spending money on, or where its going they fizzle out faster than they have the opportunity to get to know who their competition really is

SoCo n Lime wrote:
when your qualified with legitimate bits of paper to prove your skills then thats when you can rightfully call yourself a photographer IMO..

Oh dear... the only legitimate bits of paper I have is my business card... and a few press credentials from NY fashion week and other events that needed press clearance... and a few tearsheets somewhere on this planet that gave me photocredits... some didn't...

Don't have a degree in photography... so, I should get back to school, get a degree to proof that I have skill (since when does a degree demonstrate skill, if not skill itself?)... and I am thinking about my job description until I have that paper of legitimacy.

Paul Best  wrote:
I dont beleive new photographers are taking pro jobs because for the simple fact that pros wouldnd do a wedding for 500 bucks

In one way you are right. In another way you are very wrong.

For example: A customers wants a photographer. Gets quotes from several decent pros and gets quotes around the 1000 mark.

He then speaks to a toally amateur photographer who says he'll do it for free for his portfolio.

Customers goes with the free guy, and lets say for arguements sake he does a good job.

When this customer then wants work again he calls the guy and asks for it for free, if he says no the customer will just call more amateur guys until he gets one for free.

And the guy doing the work for free in the first place? He's lost out too, because in the meantime this customer has already told other people how he can get work for free. And they all try it too. There is no work for him.

Of course eventually this system crashes down because these cheap guys are generally no good, but they are shooting themselves in the foot because it makes it more difficult for them to ascend up the ladder.

For us pros its less of a problem, because the customers who really know what they are doing come to us anyway.

Soapbox Killer wrote:
From who's, and what, perspective are you asking?

If there are 4 photographers in any given market, those 4 will certainly have more work offers then if there are 400 photographers available in that market.

So, for those people shopping around for photographers there can never be enough, good to have lots of choices...but for those photographers that are trying to make a living, I would say yes, there can be too many.

Depends on the size of the market.  400 photographers in Manhattan and there would still be plenty of room for more.

In a town of 50,000, 4 photographers may be just right.

In a village of 1000, 1 may be too many.

Even so, I think, the more the merrier.  The more people there are out their shooting, experimenting, and finding their way will transform the craft and business of photography.  Industries fold all the time, and different ones spring up to take their place.

Sometimes you have to destroy an industry to make it stronger, even if it's painful for the people being phased out.

David Parsons wrote:
EDIT....Depends on the size of the market.

This is so true.   I live in a city with over 4 million in the greater Houston area. We have numerous fortune 500 companies headquartered here.  We have many very large institutions that have in-house art directors, busy communication and community out-reach departments.   

From weddings and family portraiture, to corporate, advertising and industrial work, there is room for talented, motivated photographers.   

Like any large metropolitan market, the competition is greater but that only pushes the better shooters to the top. It allows us to specialize in certain areas of photography.  There is still room for photographers at all levels of price and ability.  It gives the buyer a great selection too.   

In smaller towns, the local photographer has to deal with any and all areas of photography to make their living. 

I must say I feel pretty lucky to live and work in Houston TX.
I started my business long ago. It's grown with the city.

Shot By Adam wrote:
I'm doing EXCEPTIONALLY well.

What do you consider exceptionally well?  I'm not asking for your number, a range is fine.  And I'm not trying to be snippy at all, so please don't take it that way.

I just hear a lot of young guys talk about how they're doing so great thinking that $50k or $60 a year is doing well, when I remember mediocre (at best) product photographers in second tier markets making between $350K and $500k a year.  Which, for the record, is what I consider doing exceptionally well.

Karl Baxter wrote:

richardson certainly invented something too..

more photographers = cheaper equipment.. rejoice

If you think that the cost of equipment will significantly affect your profit margin, I'd think again. Equipment has a life, as does your studio and if you have a studio, there is purchase or rent, build-out, fixtures/furniture/kitchen/bathroom, and THEN you get to equipment.

OTOH, with the number of folks buying a "pro-level" camera system, that number could double, and probably not affect very much in price...only the profit of the camera OEM(s).

Paramour Productions wrote:
I just hear a lot of young guys talk about how they're doing so great thinking that $50k or $60 a year is doing well,

...Not nearly as low as this.

when I remember mediocre (at best) product photographers in second tier markets making between $350K and $500k a year.  Which, for the record, is what I consider doing exceptionally well.

Not quite as high as this.