A Snapshot of Today's Photography Industry

Opening the shutter, a wave of light hits the reflective lens. Snap, the moment is captured. Shutterspeeds, however, are not the only thing photographers are open to these days. With a rush of technological improvements, digital photography has forever altered the way the industry makes or breaks its talent. Memory cards replaced film. Photoshop replaced filters. But nothing can replace a gifted photographer. As these professionals explain, despite the dramatic shift in their job descriptions, business is still looking bright.

What many of these photographers have in common is concern, not for their jobs, but for their products. The equipment is expensive, but absolutely necessary. And, as these shutterbugs point out, they are not feeling the nip of the stock photo industry at their heels. The huge success of the digital photography industry can be seen from the eagle eye of the stock market.

Jessops, the UK's largest photographic goods retailer, announced it will be listed on the London Stock Exchange, according to the BBC. Crediting a surge in the digital photography industry, the company saw a profit increase of 231 percent in six 6 years. Jessops purchased several established chains after a management buy-out in 1996, and now has 262 stores.

The shift away from traditional film, the BBC reported, has forced companies in the photographic industry to reposition their businesses, among them Eastman Kodak, who announced plans in January to shed up to 15,000 jobs worldwide. Eastman Kodak was forced to hand over the production of its cameras to Flextronics, a high-tech electronics design company, after several failed attempts to succeed in the digital market.

So if manufacturing giants in the industry are having a hard time keeping up with digital photography, how in the world are the professionals surviving? Creativity - not just in the photos themselves, but also in the photographer's self-promotion. What most photographers want to address, however, is that there are certain aspects that cannot be replaced. Debunking the myths of digital seems to be a high priority in today's market.

Novice vs. Know-It-All

Technology as an industry perpetuates the development of better/faster photography equipment. Nikon still makes film cameras, like the new F6, which is an SLR. But the new D2Xs are truly worth salivating over. Any good photographer, however, can also make the most out of their D70s. Las Vegas-based photographer Brian Brown, who shoots fashion, architecture, and still life, is keenly aware of how presentation affects the client's impression of you. "If you walk in with the wrong equipment, the client looks down on you," says Brown. "They don't know the difference between a photographer who can shoot just as well on a $200 camera as on a $2,000 one." Particular to Las Vegas, he pointed out, is the perceived obligation to do things in a big, flashy way, even when you really don't need it. "A majority of photography in Las Vegas is cheesy so we have a bad rep, but there are really good local photographers here," said Brown. "Guys like Jeff Green could easily be in any other market."

Great photography, in any city, will speak for itself. Even though photographers like Brown are having to justify their price increases, the reality is they are billing more. The shockwaves felt by the pervasiveness of stock photos continue to reach new levels. "It's made photography more creative conceptually, I think," says Brown, who also noted the need for a faster turnaround thanks to the digital era. "Clients used to want [their photos] in a week. Now it's a day."

Coming Into Focus

Seattle photographer Andrew Buchanan also concedes to the break neck pace photography endures. "The hardest part is getting clients to pay a little more," says Buchanan. "But they are going to get a better product from a professional. And those clients are out there. You just have to establish a relationship with them." Stock, he explains, is always going to be cheaper. The reality, according to Buchanan, is that there are some assignments you just can't replace with an image out of a catalogue. Ciphering those assignments out has been one of his main goals.

Early in his career, Buchanan shot annual reports, a market that doesn't seem to be available to photographers who don't shoot stock. He now covers architecture and gardens and has noticed less competition in those areas from other professionals on his skill level. "Those who have survived, survived for a reason," says Buchanan. "People who continue to work do so because they're talented. As for stock, quantity doesn't equal quality." He also noted that digital has made photography more forgiving. "If we position ourselves correctly," he added, "we don't have to be second choice."

Stock photography suppliers amass images by the thousands, if not millions. Web sites like iStockphoto, Photo.com, and Corbis accumulate multiple photos, even of the same subjects, so users have to search by key words. For example, iStockphoto has 600,000 images. Searching the key word "flower" pulls up 60,307 files. What clients need to decide is what their time is better spent doing - hiring a professional photographer who will bring back the one image they need, or sorting through the database for a flower "that will do for now."

More than competing against stock photography, Buchanan and others feel they battle against the point-and-shooter. "I'm losing more work to in-house or on-staff employees who buy a digital camera and feel they can do it themselves," he says. Ronda Churchill, a member of the National Press Photographer's Association (NPPA), shoots for the Las Vegas Review Journal and has seen evidence of this fact. "I've seen these people holding up their point-and-shoot camera and not even looking through the viewfinder," says Churchill, who also covers trade shows and special events. "They're not going to get the eye of the professional or the quality they are looking for."

Churchill was taught on film in college but made the switch to digital immediately entering her professional career. She shoots mostly all of her assignments on digital due to the nature of photojournalism's deadlines. The quick turnaround, she says, gives her a big advantage - even by a matter of minutes. "If there's a particular look people want, I will use film instead," says Churchill. "There's just something special about film, a certain look you get from it that you can't get from digital." She also feels fortunate to be shooting in Las Vegas where there always seems to be plenty of work to go around. "If you get your name out there, people will respect you," says Churchill.

Evan Schneider, who works for the Historical Society in Oregon, agrees with Churchill about the essence of film. "What's going to be interesting is 10 to 20 years from now, how many photos will still be around in their highest quality," he says. "Digital is so new that we don't yet know what the longevity of their quality will be." While our digital stockpile is increasing, fewer hard copies are being retained. "The best images [the historical society] has are some of the oldest," says Schneider. "We need to get people beyond the superficial task of getting images now."

For The Love

Also a member of NPPA, Sandy Huffaker is a photojournalist in San Diego who includes corporate clients in his repertoire, more so for the money than for the love. He attributes his success with companies to his photojournalism background and style. "A lot of times when they hire a portrait photographer, they don't get the look they want in their materials," says Huffaker. "It comes across looking too stuffy. I tell them to just have a real conversation and I shoot that." He also mentioned that after a few moments of this type of shooting, you seem to disappear for a while and that's when you get the really good pictures. "It's an art form that you acquire after a lot of practice," Huffaker explains. He sees a direct connection between the clean, fresh, almost raw look of this type of photography and the popularity of reality TV.

Huffaker was one of those who held out switching to digital. He calls himself a purest and didn't leave film until two years ago. "I think film is dead," he says. "Digital, however, has created more photographers. There's just a lot more to choose from, but I also think there are enough clients who want quality work." Deadlines are also easier to face, says Huffaker, as clients continue to want their material faster and faster. Overhead is cheaper, he explains, because processing film costs more. However, new laptops and cameras are a lot more expensive.

When equipments costs between $10,000 and $100,000 on average, photographers are mainly concerned about their bottom line - which sometimes isn't much. In 2002, for example, the average salary of people employed as photographers was $24,040, according to Education Portal. Then there are the people like Phil Kramer, a wedding photographer, who will charge a minimum of $10,000. "I think there's a fallacy to think that digital is cheaper," says Peter Samuels, chairman of Advertising Photographers of America-San Francisco. "The learning curve and the gear is expensive." It's not uncommon to take out a $10,000 loan for equipment. "I spent $7,000 on a camera and two 2 years later I'm already selling it for $2,000." That's actually a fast turnaround for someone who spent $2,000 on the one camera he used for the first 15 years of his career.

Respect Yourself

If photographers, however, are being paid fairly for their work, the equipment should eventually pay for itself. The conflict in this balance, as Samuels points out, comes when young, inexperienced photographers alter the inherent value in original photography, or the revenue per image (RPI). He referenced an article in Photo District News about a talented woman who submitted a photo to iStockphoto.com, as she was trying to launch her professional career. IBM purchased that photo from the stock Web site for $5 and used it on their home page. While her friends may have congratulated her, the budget for art for that Web site is now permanently altered, along with the ripple effects that instance will have on other professionals. Los Angeles-based photographer Jack Fleming is a big proponent of proper RPI. He finds it offensive that original photography is going for $1 to $5 on the Internet because that image becomes "forever" with an endless frequency of viewed and/or used. "My dad shared his 35mm SLR with me when I was in sixth grade so I could shoot for the yearbook," he said. "The idea of earning $1 for every photograph selected seemed like the greatest thing in the world as a very young teen. It doesn't seem right that IBM pays only $4 more than my junior high yearbook did."

After about a decade in the industry he tries to advise upcoming photographers. "People, please charge for your time," he says. "Demand respect for yourselves and your creations. Give yourself value. Make an honest living."

Stock, Samuels went on to say, is a great way to supplement your income if priced right, and that is what a good businessperson would call diversification. "Every year [APA] sees people move into the digital realm," Samuels says. "Personally, the move to digital has helped me to realize what I'm trying to communicate." For example, when he has one shot where the model's smile is perfect and then a different photo where the product looks perfect, he doesn't have to keep shooting until both are perfect. Using software to merge the two 2images, he says, puts the control in his hands instead of his client's. "If I had to give the client the film, they would be making the decision," he says. "You're not even there."

Overall, he is optimistic, not only about his own work, but about work in general. Samuels is not anti-stock by any means. In fact, he says it allows him to pursue the assignment-based advertising photography and focus on his work - which is currently on a roll. "I'm in a place where I'm happy with my work, which means I'm also getting it out there," says Samuels. "Photographers just need to have tenacity, be savvy and lucky."