Photographers' salaries

[David H. Bebbington]

I have long been aware that staff photographers' salaries are anything but princely, but even so this
http://www.peakdistrict.org/index/jobs/jobs-display-page.htm?id=15681
has annoyed me. A great job in every respect but the truly pitiful level of payment of around £10,000 a year for 22 hours per week (assuming full time means 40 hours a week). Presumably the employer will get enough talented young hopefuls applying to fill the post, even at the starvation salary, but the whole thing smells pretty bad to me. What do others think?

Regards,

David

 

[Trevor Crone]

'Mac literate and adept at Photoshop'.......that's me out of the running.

Seriously, its not too good even with the car allowence.

One of the reasons why I never gave up my day job and kept photography as a hobby that payed for itself. Although now I'm retired from that day job one of my sources of income is freelance work. However I will always consider myself as an amateur photographer who gets the occasional payment for what I do. This is the ideal situation for me.

Its a difficult world for the full-time photographers.

 

[BobNewYork]

Yes - it's amazing what they can get away with. There's little difference between photography and any other art form as regards an ability to earn a living. If you're talented and lucky enough to get to the top you can do very well. Like musicians. Thing is EVERYWHERE you look, a photographer has been used, (and should have been paid) - papers, magazines, ads etc. etc. For something like this, there are always beginners looking for an opportunity to be published to add to their portfolio. People will take advantage of this and hire newbies on a regular basis. I know of a small magazine in NYC that regularly hires recent photo graduates for assignments; tells the kids they can't pay that much, publishes the work and then doesn't pay them the pittance they originally offered! It's simple, the photographer, looking to get a career going jumps at the chance to get published and then gets screwed. The magazine knows they'll never get sued - a newbie can't afford a lawyer. Everyone wants artistic work - painting, photos, music, lyrics - but no-one really wants to pay for it. Look at the writers' strike here in the States.

AAAH David - you got me started!!!!

 

[Steve Roberts]

I have long been aware that staff photographers' salaries are anything but princely, but even so this
http://www.peakdistrict.org/index/jobs/jobs-display-page.htm?id=15681
has annoyed me. A great job in every respect but the truly pitiful level of payment of around £10,000 a year for 22 hours per week (assuming full time means 40 hours a week). Presumably the employer will get enough talented young hopefuls applying to fill the post, even at the starvation salary, but the whole thing smells pretty bad to me. What do others think?

Regards,

David

I once applied for a job with our local Dartmoor National Park authority and it was soon obvious that they were looking for someone who was sufficiently enthusiastic about the work that they could get away with paying a pittance. However, ten grand for 22 hours a week seems to plumb new depths, especially when I'd bet my boots that the "lucky" person would end up working a lot more unpaid hours than the 22 mentioned.

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

I have made my living full time with cameras (Movie, TV, commercial photography) since I was 18. Thats 25 years. For the past 12 I have been freelance. Sentiments for film aside, the d* revolution has reduced or depressed the working wage, at least in my markets. Rates are the same or lower than ten years ago. These days I work more hours for less money. The bar for entry equipment wise, and skill wise has been lowered to the degree that anybody with a whim can hang out a shingle. Ten years ago there were about 30 photographers listed in this market. As of the last book, there are now over 400. Population has increased about 10% here, in the same time frame. I'm lucky, in that I have established clientele, and a good reputation.
Nonetheless, I have still felt this crunch. They pop up as fast as they go under. Hopefully this will cycle out at some point, but I would hesitate to recommend this line of work to somebody just starting out.

It's difficult to compete in a bloated market against people who are losing money, and don't even realize it, and it also makes the competent established people compete harder, and that's where we are all suffering.

Over all this has always been kind of a bargain hunters market. I would hesitate to call my bread and butter work "art" but it is the work that fosters my ability to do my own stuff, make silly video's, etc.

Geographically, its difficult to reach out of this market, but I continue to explore all options.

The summation is that these days, most of the time, I do OK, but I no longer have the illusion that things will get better. The overall trend is down, has been down, and looks to stay down, so I'm trying some twists and turns.

I don't really have any other skill set.

 

[Pinholemaster]

The digital revolution means more for less, even for a persons talents. Sickening.

A graphic designer with Photoshop skills gets paid more. The moment you slap the description 'Photographer' on the label, the big guys with all the money think that they can pay less.

Someday, perhaps we can all pay for the privilege to photograph. "Here, take my wallet."

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Walt, we all already do that, every time we buy materials and hardware about the only thing worse is having boats for a hobby. Slapping the word "photo" on something means you can charge three times the street value for something; slap the word "marine" on it and you can charge 10x. Now, they've really gotten into the game with digital photography- slap the word Digital on the front of the word "photo" and all of a sudden a plain glass 55mm protective filter costs $50 (not even UV-coated!).

 

[Gary Holliday]

That is a low wage especially as they want a degree student, they should be adding another 7 grand at least. I reckon we should email them and let them know that their wages are disgraceful. But in a world where people believe it's all point and shoot and photoshop sorts it out..no wonder.

 

[Edwardv]

The digital revolution means more for less, even for a persons talents. Sickening.

A graphic designer with Photoshop skills gets paid more. The moment you slap the description 'Photographer' on the label, the big guys with all the money think that they can pay less.

."

Hear Hear

 

[Andy K]

£10,000 a year is not 'starvation salary'. Get some perspective FFS!

 

[Ian Grant]

Something that has been missed is who the employer is. UK local authorities have to conform to nationally agreed pay scales and in fact the salary offered is quite typical for newly qualified graduates working in the public sector.

Looking at similar job vacancies in the BJP all the starting salaries are all about the same. That doesn't mean I think it's a brilliant salary but that's the way it is.

Ian

 

[waileong]

1. They pay what they want, and they have to live with what they get.

2. In my view, photogs should not be workers, they should run their own studios or freelance. So much of the work we do is copyright, and one should be able to retain the rights to everything we shoot, not work for a pittance so someone else can earn perpetual licence fees from the fruit of our efforts.

 

[crabby]

I'm sure many of us share the same story. Started work for a photo studio at very low wages. Kept our eyes and ears open, learned as much as we could. When the time was right, we went freelance or opened our own studio.

 

[Steve Smith]

Walt, we all already do that, every time we buy materials and hardware

I can think of something that costs me more than photography. Look to the left!

Actually, I do earn a little bit from music so perhaps it's not so bad.


Steve.

 

[Steve Roberts]

£10,000 a year is not 'starvation salary'. Get some perspective FFS!

I suppose it depends how much (and what) you eat!

Steve ;-)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't know, here in the US that would translate into $20,000 for 1/2 time. Where I live, in Minnesota, that's above the median salary of about $38,000 for full time. But I don't know what counts as starvation. Starvation seems to be that you don't have food on the table to eat. I'm sure that could be avoided at this level.
If I had had that opportunity when I got to the US (had a good job in Sweden), I would have taken it, because it took me five years of dedicated and focused work to get to the median salary level, and that's in the corporate world!

What kind of pay are people looking for and expecting?

- Thomas

 

[Bob F.]

So, a 19k annualized salary. This is not too far under the national average salary of 22k and is in a relatively low-cost area of the country so can hardly be described as as exceptionally low. Your 19k will go a lot further in Derbyshire that it would in Surrey for example...

Now, you may well argue that a skilled photographer (note that the degree is optional) should be earning more than this, but guess what - the National Park Authority will be inundated with applications. Supply and demand: simple as that.

Bob.

 

[removed account4]

in the uk are jobs like this "staff" and they take taxes out,
or is the person is considered a "consultant" ?

at least here in the states,
a lot of photographers are self-employed/contractors /consultants
( even for advertised positions like this )
so 48¢ of ever dollar is tax of one sort or another ...

just wonderin'
cause the advertised $$ after tax isn't much

--john

 

[Sandeha Lynch]

So, a 19k annualized salary. This is not too far under the national average salary of 22k and is in a relatively low-cost area of the country so can hardly be described as as exceptionally low.

Yo ... I earn less than this.

Maybe I should become a photographer. :rolleyes:

 

[Trevor Crone]

I don't know, here in the US that would translate into $20,000 for 1/2 time. Where I live, in Minnesota, that's above the median salary of about $38,000 for full time. But I don't know what counts as starvation. Starvation seems to be that you don't have food on the table to eat. I'm sure that could be avoided at this level.

What kind of pay are people looking for and expecting?

- Thomas

Thomas I suspect £ for £/$ for $ will go a lot further in Minnesota then in Derbyshire. Cost of housing on these shores is scary especially for first time buyers and the cost of such things as petrol is around £1.09/litre. It may be a lot cheaper in Derbyshire then here in London. Thankfully they do offer a car allowence.

While certainly not starvation level someone looking for a decent standard of living, perhaps looking to marriage and raising a family, would probably need to subsidise this job. As its offered at 22 hours/week this could easily be done to bring it up to 35 or above.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

What kind of pay are people looking for and expecting?

As a guide, couples earning £70,000 pa between them can just buy a house in the London area (for around £200,000). In Derbyshire you could probably get a house for £125,000, for which you would probably need a combined income of £40,000 or more.

 

[Edwardv]

I suppose it depends how much (and what) you eat!

Steve ;-)

I am not a fish and chips eater. Where is the beef? On my grill cooking.

 

[mark]

My wife is half owner of a marine repair and storage business (her and her brother inherited it). Your statement is under inflated. 10x is pretty cheap. My father in law always said he was on the right side of marine ownership, owning the repair shop.

Walt, we all already do that, every time we buy materials and hardware about the only thing worse is having boats for a hobby. Slapping the word "photo" on something means you can charge three times the street value for something; slap the word "marine" on it and you can charge 10x. Now, they've really gotten into the game with digital photography- slap the word Digital on the front of the word "photo" and all of a sudden a plain glass 55mm protective filter costs $50 (not even UV-coated!).

 

[BobbyR]

I have long been aware that staff photographers' salaries are anything but princely, but even so this
http://www.peakdistrict.org/index/jobs/jobs-display-page.htm?id=15681
has annoyed me. A great job in every respect but the truly pitiful level of payment of around £10,000 a year for 22 hours per week (assuming full time means 40 hours a week). Presumably the employer will get enough talented young hopefuls applying to fill the post, even at the starvation salary, but the whole thing smells pretty bad to me. What do others think?
Regards,
David

Now different in different areas x amount of money will only cover z, q or p amount of expenses, but the equivalent of 20,000 dollars a year for only 22 hours a week is far from the misery level.

Only twelve years ago I was earning what amounted to at forty hours a week 14,560 dollars a week, and to make it pay I was working 50-70 hours a week land-scaping.
This was after I recovered from blowing my shoulder out doing the same thing two years earlier, when I was getting paid the same.

Where I live in Minnesota, it WAS, a town with below average wages, but ALSO well below average costs.
NOW the wages still suck, but the costs are the same as the Twin Cities.

I quit landscaping when when I found the ony decent paying job would not pay work-mans comp. and took job at the Minnesota Zoo which payed nine and a half dollars an hour, but I commuted ninety miles, one-way, every day, and I knew that job was gong bye-bye when they started laying of people who had been there twelve years.

What am I saying, until one is carrying a bag to pick-up aluminum cans to help get more money-AND I DID DO THAT--one has no reason to complain, and there are people even worse off than that.

Bobby

 

[c6h6o3]

Slapping the word "photo" on something means you can charge three times the street value for something; slap the word "marine" on it and you can charge 10x.

Slap the word 'aviation' on it and you can charge 100x.