Photographers' salaries

I have stayed out of this discussion, but I think that I should weigh in here.

Anyone can profess to be a photographer. But, it takes years to learn the actual art and chemistry involved. Anyone can profess to be a photo engineer and you have all seen both of these effects taking place on the internet. Of course there is On the Job Training (OJT), but to be a good photographer, IMHO you need some sort of formalized training or some form of mentor + OJT or you cannot be 'great'.

Now, consider the number of people with fair portfolios who have no formal training and no outside help who apply for jobs as photographers. They get the job often just due to being at the right place at the right time. What results is a large number of self proclaimed professionals without either formal training or some form of OJT, and therefore this 'glut' of 'experts' depresses the overall market value of the skills involved.

I'll give an example. I know the dye bleach chemistry and can coat a fair dye bleach print material. I can make Ilfochrome prints, but I can't make prints like Dave Travis. I know bromoil and carbon, but I would not compare myself with Sandy King. I've seen his prints in person and they knock your socks off.

You need years of experience, OJT, or a hard long course in photography as an art. You can't just go out and snap a shutter and build a fair portfolio and then expect to be above average. But, in fact, too many are doing that and this glut is depressing the overall level of salaries for people such as yourselves. Now that is an opinion, and maybe I have missed similar opinions in this thread, but I've had to deal with this "I can use a camera" syndrome for over 50 years. In fact, I had no formal training in photography per se, I have two degrees in chemistry. I got OJT in the military, working my way through college in a photo lab, and at Kodak which gave lots of training in all aspects of photography.

So, unless you can get the hiring people to recognize that it takes more than the ability to work the camera or develop a print, or use photo shop (mostly to correct errors, I might add), there are too many non-qualified photographers who are depressing starting salaries.

As noted by myself and confirmed by Simon Galley, there are about 200 qualified photo engineers in the entire world. There is no depression in our salaries. You get interviewed for a position and you drop out quickly if you show no true aptitude. So, you have as part of your charge, the necessity of increasing awareness of the technical and art natures of photography, and show it is not just a point and shoot low level job.

This is what I see missing here. The problem that I see is that I see no easy solution. This idea about photography is fixed in everyones mind. Photography is for the masses and anyone can master it. Until this can be changed, a photographer will be a low level starting position in most cases.

PE

As far as I know, the labor market for photographers is a free and open market. Noone is being coerced into accepting this contract. If the offer is not high enough, you need not bid on the contract. You are also free to make a counter offer that may or may not be accepted. No party is obliged to any other at this point. So, I do not understand what the problem is.

Ron,

These guys are not looking for a photo engineer. They are looking for someone who can take a decent picture and use photoshop. Big difference.

Mark;

I know that. You need to read what I wrote again. I never suggested that.

I am saying that anyone can profess to be a photogapher and thus there is a glut of self proclaimed photographers on the market. Thus salaries are depressed even for the real professional.

Thats it.

PE

Anyone can profess to be a photographer. But, it takes years to learn the actual art and chemistry involved. Anyone can profess to be a photo engineer and you have all seen both of these effects taking place on the internet. Of course there is On the Job Training (OJT), but to be a good photographer, IMHO you need some sort of formalized training or some form of mentor + OJT or you cannot be 'great'.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this 100%. I have seen amazing photographers with a true understanding of their art who are entirely self-taught, and I don't mean over the course of thirty years. I've also seen a plethora of bad and mediocre photographers who have photography degrees from important schools.

Some photographers may require formal education to become "great" while others may rely on self-education to become "great." There is no one correct path.

Cheryl;

Again, reread what I said above. I mention OJT. What is that? On the Job Training. That is DOING. I described several paths.

I stress again that I am referring to the number who just walk in off the street 'knowing' photography.

In fact, your post and the one above are proof of concept here. You have glanced at it and have only a superficial understanding of what I said or meant. Please look again.

There are people who watch football who think they can be great coaches. There are people who criticize TV programs and think they are drama critics. If they become good at what they do, then yes, but they cannot just walk in off the street. I've had too many experiences with shutter button pushers who claim to be photographers. No, they take snapshots.

PE

Nigel said:

As far as I know, the labor market for photographers is a free and open market. Noone is being coerced into accepting this contract. If the offer is not high enough, you need not bid on the contract. You are also free to make a counter offer that may or may not be accepted. No party is obliged to any other at this point. So, I do not understand what the problem is.

Click to expand...

There really isn't a "problem" unless you happen to be on the sh*^ end of the stick. In a free market, all prices are what the market will bear. The the glut of psuedo-photographers, has depressed the wage for most skilled working photographers, through sheer dilution, especially in medium sized markets, such as I live in. It certainly sucks, when you make a living at it. For a fact, I do walk away from a large percentage of work, because the expectations don't fit the money offered. That is, and always will be my choice.

Recognition of a sh*^^y condition isn't necessarily a complaint.

The fact is I work the same hours for just over half the money I made ten years ago. That's the current market. I'd be an idiot if I didn't notice, and the factors that have created this condition are obvious and tangible to anybody in the business.

Photo Engineer said:

there is a glut of self proclaimed photographers on the market. Thus salaries are depressed even for the real professional.

PE

Click to expand...

That's one thing I like about being in Canada and being an Engineer, is that title is protected. You can only call yourself an Engineer if you have met the prescribed qualifications, and join the appropriate provincial socitey. Medicine and Law are the other two recognized professions.

It seem too easy for anyone to call themselves a "professional photographer", yet without any sort of standards as to who can call themselves a professional, the buyer of a photographer doesn't really know what they are buying.

okay--but this job is posted within a gov't agency with a pay grade structure. So maybe, instead of thinking in terms of what a dream salary might be--you all should be comparing it to the other jobs within that pay grade within the structure of that actual system. how does it stack up to the other positions? If you look at the types of photography postions within the US gov't, I think you'd find many of them similar to this. When I started, the entry level photo position was just under $18K/yr with benefits. The entry level lab tech is about two grades LOWER than that. I saw a shpo type postion not so long ago with another state, and it was about $24K a yr full time. So, $20K for a 22 hour/week job doesn't seem that bad to me--considering when I worked part time I was paid about $7/hr for a 20 hour/week job. I worked as stringer for some papers--the rate was $100 a day. One studio I worked in, paid minimum wage to even the upper levels of assistants--the guys who practically did the entire shots, the photographer just walked onto the set & approved the polaroid. Minimum wage was $4.50 an hour. None of these jobs had the benefits I described earlier.

my opinions only/not my employers.

Craig said:

That's one thing I like about being in Canada and being an Engineer, is that title is protected. You can only call yourself an Engineer if you have met the prescribed qualifications, and join the appropriate provincial socitey.

Click to expand...

I am the opposite. I am an engineer and I do engineering work but I do not have a degree and I am not a member of any society.

If anyone questions this then I call myself a product designer instead!


Steve.

Photo Engineer said:

Cheryl;

Again, reread what I said above. I mention OJT. What is that? On the Job Training. That is DOING. I described several paths.

I stress again that I am referring to the number who just walk in off the street 'knowing' photography.

In fact, your post and the one above are proof of concept here. You have glanced at it and have only a superficial understanding of what I said or meant. Please look again.

There are people who watch football who think they can be great coaches. There are people who criticize TV programs and think they are drama critics. If they become good at what they do, then yes, but they cannot just walk in off the street. I've had too many experiences with shutter button pushers who claim to be photographers. No, they take snapshots.

PE

Click to expand...

PE, on the contrary. I did read your entire post -- I did not just glance at it.

You said, "Anyone can profess to be a photographer. But, it takes years to learn the actual art and chemistry involved. Anyone can profess to be a photo engineer and you have all seen both of these effects taking place on the internet. Of course there is On the Job Training (OJT), but to be a good photographer, IMHO you need some sort of formalized training or some form of mentor + OJT or you cannot be 'great'."

You have clearly stated that without either formalized training or a mentor PLUS OJT you cannot be great. What have I misunderstood there? You didn't put formal training and pure OJT on even planes.

I simply disagree with you. That doesn't mean I didn't read your whole post.

- CJ

Both Craig and Steve have made valid points regarding careers. You can get there by many routes as I pointed out above, but it is too easy to be a self declared professional photogapher. This creates an excess of people seeking jobs in the field and therefore due to supply and demand, salaries go down.

Photography has been trivialized to an extent by the 'you press the button, we do the rest' philosophy of Kodak and other photo companies. Now, everyone with a camera or a cell phone can be a 'professional'. In fact, as I have tried to point out as well, the trivialization of the profession of photographer has slopped over into the profession of photo engineer. This is not a good situation. All of the posts are to the point. Good photographers are often going underpaid. This is quite sad.

PE

Cheryl Jacobs said:

PE, on the contrary. I did read your entire post -- I did not just glance at it.

You said, "Anyone can profess to be a photographer. But, it takes years to learn the actual art and chemistry involved. Anyone can profess to be a photo engineer and you have all seen both of these effects taking place on the internet. Of course there is On the Job Training (OJT), but to be a good photographer, IMHO you need some sort of formalized training or some form of mentor + OJT or you cannot be 'great'."

You have clearly stated that without either formalized training or a mentor PLUS OJT you cannot be great. What have I misunderstood there? You didn't put formal training and pure OJT on even planes.

I simply disagree with you. That doesn't mean I didn't read your whole post.

- CJ

Click to expand...

Cheryl;

With all due respect, OJT (going out and taking pictures and learning) reading, and etc with the help of a mentor such as was done by Ansel Adams is one of the best ways to become a good professional. That is how people like Al Weber learned photography. Dave Vestal learned by doing, a long grueling road, and is a marvelous photographer. So, I do recognize many paths. I refer specifically to the trivialization of the career or making it too easy.

I think we are not so far apart as you might think. However, I do believe that formalized education helps, whether it be in art or photography or related studies, but that is beside the point. For the purposes here, I think the problem is that there are too many people trying to get into the field without being good, and so pay is low.

As an individual photographer proves him or herself, they can command a lot more. I know several photographers with different types of education in photography who command huge prices for their work and they deserve every penny of what they get.

PE

PE,

If you also agree that self-teaching WITHOUT the benefit of a mentor is an equally viable path, then you are correct that we aren't far apart.

- CJ

Steve Smith said:

I am the opposite. I am an engineer and I do engineering work but I do not have a degree and I am not a member of any society.

Click to expand...

A degree is not required to become a licenced Professional Engineer in Canada, you'd need minimum 8 years experience, verified by a P. Eng., and write some exams.

If you do engineering work, you must by law be a member of the engineering society. To be a member, you must meet both education and experience requirements.

The underlying purpose of this is to protect the public so that not just anybody can call themselves an Engineer. It raises the respect, public trust and competence of the profession. Thus you'll never have the highschool boy at the local gas station being called a "petroleum transport engineer". I saw an ad for that, but it didn't last long before they were forced to change the name.

After all you want the people designing bridges to know what they are doing; just as you wouldn't want anyone to be able to call themselves a doctor without some kind of check of qualifications, or ability to stop them calling themselves a doctor if they have no medical qualifications.

Cheryl Jacobs said:

PE,

If you also agree that self-teaching WITHOUT the benefit of a mentor is an equally viable path, then you are correct that we aren't far apart.

- CJ

Click to expand...

Cheryl;

Yes, I agree with you.

I have seen too many of this type though and many are really not very good at it. And since there are too many of these and they are not that good, the salary goes down due to the law of supply and demand. A business takes a chance on weeding the bad from the good.

That is the problem.

I have been approached by people as I carry my Bronica or RZ and they have a D70 or some such. "Oh, are you a photographer?" and from there on the conversation goes downhill. They know nothing about photography, art, perspective and then go on to comment that "I can fix it in photoshop" or "If I take enough I find that at least one of them is ok for the portfolio I'm building".

Hah. Of course, Ansel said something to the effect that 10,000 bad photos will lead to one good one, but OTOH, I would love to have those rejects.

So, yes, I agree, but many people believe that they just need to push the button.

PE

PE, I would agree in general. It's also worth mentioning, however, how detrimental "art education" can be on photographers. I've seen so many whose work prior to formal education was quite creative and full of potential -- and then their instructors browbeat the individuality an instinct out of their work. The "end" result is usually incredibly uninspiring.

I'm a guest speaker from time to time at the Art Institute of Colorado, and I have to say that I am consistently appalled at what those students do not know and are not taught. It's a bit depressing, and it makes me scratch my head and wonder what exactly these students are getting for the $100K in student loans they end up owing?

- CJ

Cheryl;

In Chemical and Engineering News in 1959, they published the results of a study on creativiity. They found that on average, the more formal training a person had, the less creativity they showed. This was in all areas of study. So, again I agree with you. But, OTOH again I can cite reasons. If you 'disagree' with an art or english teacher on style, you are set up for a sure failure. Therefore, the college has set itself up to put blinders on people. This is also projected into the sciences.

There are many examples of people with creative or novel ideas who really end up being punished by the system. I'm not blind to that either, by any means.

Hmmm, my memory is playing tricks. That might have been JCE "Journal of Chemical Education" instead. Sorry, not sure after so many years.

PE

Craig said:

That's one thing I like about being in Canada and being an Engineer, is that title is protected. You can only call yourself an Engineer if you have met the prescribed qualifications, and join the appropriate provincial socitey. Medicine and Law are the other two recognized professions.

Click to expand...

There are other engineers - steam, railway, etc. I think you mean "Professional Engineer".

There are other "recognized" professions in Canada besides Law, Medicine and Engineering. Accounting, Forestry and Biology come to mind.

johnnywalker said:

Not quite. There are other engineers - steam, railway, etc. I think you mean "Professional Engineer".

There are other "recognized" professions in Canada besides Law, Medicine and Engineering. Accounting, Forestry and Biology come to mind.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are a few grandfathered names where the term "engineer" can be used, but they are very restricted. The goal is that "engineer" = licenced Professional Engineer in the eyes of the public.

By profession, the way it was explained to me by a lawyer friend, is that recognized professions are self regulating, and the socities that govern them have the power to instate or remove members, and to bar others from practice. I'm not sure if accounting would fall into this category or not, but I've remembered that in Alberta Land Surveyors do.

If I call myself an accountant without having a clue about accounting can the Accounting accociation take me to court and get an injuction to stop me calling myself an accountant, and can the court then fine and/or jail me if I persist? The Engineering\Law\Medical associations in each province do have that power. It has always been a defintion of a profession if the governing society has those sorts of powers.

My point is that according to the self governing definition, there are very few professions, and thus relatively few people are "professional" anything. They may however, become very competent in their craft, but don't met the legal definition of professional.

I can call myself an accountant, but not a "Chartered Accountant", same with engineer and Professional Engineer. Interestingly, I can no longer call myself a "Forester" in BC because after 40 years I retired from the Association that regulates them. I probably could keep calling myself a Forester if I moved to Saskatchewan or Manitoba (God forbid).

with a few exceptions here, it looks like I may be the only posting who is actually in a type of position as the one that started this thread. It's interesting to read the range of comments it brings forth--is anyone interested in what the Designer listed in the structural chart on the job description makes? You know anyone can be a graphic designer now with a computer too--(joke--far from the truth). What about the editor? They had one of those on there too. How about those positions? I'm afraid when you all talk about "depressed" wages it goes beyond photography--but that's the way it's always has been. To talk about photographer's wages being low is almost a joke--to me, it makes me think, what planet have you been living on? To be even nice about it--as J Brunner has pointed out--the private sector market, and especially the lab industry has collapsed. These staff type positions have ALWAYS paid lower than the private sector, imho--it's only now that those jobs have disappeared, that the disparity in salaries etc becomes magnified. But they also become attractive because they're still there and many have benefits....

funny--for several years the local ASMP chapter would invite me & my boss to meetings and the like, trying to get us to join, but there was really no purpose, since as work for hire, we had so little in common. In the past several years though, some of those folks have cold called us looking for work and completely closed up their studios and moved on to other fields, or are still trying to figure it out. I can't say that it's been a good feeling for me--to see studios and labs go out of business. It's not that salaries are low--it's that the jobs have totally disappeared. They're not coming back in terms of "analog" photography--so to grouse about having to know how to use photoshop or a scanner for a photo job, is truly naive in my opinion.

speaking of which--my opinions only/as always.

In my country, engeneer is title for someone who has university diploma (degree) for particular area of work. Highchool graduate whos job for example is installing gas installation in house is not gas engeneer, it is "gas installer". Someone who drive train is not "railroad engeneer" he or she is "train driver". One who make plan where railroad tracks will be placed, where to put traffic lights and when particular light will bi lighted, who calculate times of trains passing, etc... that is job for "railroad engeneer".

One class of engineers is the product of a system of schools and accreditation. A rarer class of engineers is born, not made. John M. Browning is one example. Perhaps he would be called an inventer, not engineer. That may merely be a quirk of semantics; it's the results that matter. Some of the many firearms he designed are still popular, still in production, over a hundred years later. Many of his designs were bought by Winchester not because they were merely good, but because they were so good that Winchester didn't want the competition to have them. Browning was probably the greatest inventer or engineer of firearms in history. This is because he had genius, not the schooling and accreditation of a professional.

When I was growing up in the 1940s, most small midwest towns had a mechanic. Such men weren't schooled (except OJT and a few books) or certified. What schools could eventually teach good students, these men intuitively felt. They could dissasemble broken unfamiliar equipment, analyze it to determine its function, determine its problem, adjust or perhaps improvise or fabricate broken parts, reassemble it, and check out its performance. These men were expected to repair everything from bicycles to heavy farm machinery, including autos, trucks, motorcycles, home appliances, firearms, children's toys, and sometimes radios and television. This goes beyond the capabilities instilled by mere schooling. Such men are born, not made.

I have to agree Jim. Unfortunately, I think part of the problem is that higher education has become an industry in and of itself. Academia as we knew it no longer exists. Used to be that academia was solely concerned with expanding the frontiers of knowledge - for the sake of expanding knowledge and passing it on. As far as I'm concerned the day they started patenting human genes all bets were off!