Have the words "Wealthy" and "Photographer ever been used together.

[Johnnie5]

Just a little mirth for the Holidays after watching a video about Vivian Maier and what she accomplished without wanting to get rich.  Hers may have been the purest form of photography with no recognition or monetary gain expected.  Eccentric to say the least, but inspirational none the less.

[Linda]

She definitely had an amazing body of work.Too bad she didn't 'get it out there.'

 

But as far as your subject line,yes,I have know many wealthy photographers though I think the reality of stock now,unless you own the agency or have a huge backlog of material shot that no one else has,you will not be looking at major gains.But,nothing is impossible and success stories are still out there;you just have to look harder.

 

Many of the photogs I currently know know that rake in mid to high 6 figures are commercial or wedding photogs.

 

L

[Brian Yarvin]

Linda, I'm also seeing a huge increase in prices being paid for fine art images at the big New York galleries. A few at the very top end have been reported in the press but the result has been that gallery prices in general are up. And ... many of these images are from contemporary living photographers.

[Dyn Llun]

Linda, I'm also seeing a huge increase in prices being paid for fine art images at the big New York galleries. A few at the very top end have been reported in the press but the result has been that gallery prices in general are up. And ... many of these images are from contemporary living photographers.

 

I can vouch for the increase in original print prices as 99% of my income comes from sales of my newer colour work and my older 'vintage' b&w prints. I mean proper silver prints made by me in my darkroom of course, not inkjet prints from digi files. Proper collectors who pay proper money demand proper prints. The galleries and dealers that handle my work for me have seen a rise in overall sales and prices recently and I have benefitted along with others. Luckily for me I have an extensive archive going back over 50 years and I still retain my comfortable, well - equipped, spacious darkroom and the skills to make proper, archival, gelatin / silver prints. While I don't count myself as wealthy, photography has paid for my main home and studio and more recently a cottage in Snowdonia - both without mortgages. Some folks scoffed at me (and some still do) for retaining my b&w darkroom and continuing to shoot my serious, (not stock) landscape work on 10" x 8". I'm reaping the benefits now though. I have been selling prints through galleries for forty years and could never have dreamed of the prices I am getting now in those days. 

[Linda]

I do well on my 35 year backlog. I have appx 500,000 images that are pre-digital and do sell well. In total I have more than 1.3 million images stashed away on online sites and in a vault.

I'm glad that I've been able to do what I do for 35 years and have a condo in a luxury highrise.

 

But the newer digital material that others often doesn't garner as high of prices unless they've lucked out. I had repped hundreds of photogs for decades and we still keep in touch and share info on sales. In the past,we'd see see sales of hundreds to thousands a day.

 

I've sold prints for as high as $2500 in the past but many of the younger people around me at events are not doing so well on stock. It's more quantity than actual decent sales.

 

L

 

L

[Ed Rooney]

Let me take a minute here, Linda, and thank you for sharing so much of your photography business savvy with us in the forum.

 

Johnnie5, our OP, is comparing two very different things. Professional photographers want and need to make money from what they do with a camera. Maybe not with every single picture, but the term pro means earning money. There are other photographers who shoot pictures as an emotional need, an intense pastime, a hobby, art or an obsession. Miss Maier was one of these. So was Henri Cartier-Bresson in the beginning. Richard Avedon was both a big money maker and an artist. I wonder where Picasso fits in when he would pay for his lunch in a restaurant with a quick sketch? 

 

Edo

[Brian Yarvin]

Pete, In the big city galleries I visit (not as an artist!), silver prints barely scratch the surface. Every sort of what we used to call "alternetive processes" are now there and on the walls. Platinum, gum, and carbon are in the mix too. Together with silver, these are what you might think of as photography's oil painting.

 

I might as well admit it - every trend in the photography world is a surprise to me.

[Robert Brook]

,

[Linda]

Being exhibited in a real gallery is something I've not done yet though I've had my work be on permanent display at big companies and then a traveing exhibit from Spin Magazine back in the 1980s.

 

Is it normal for a gallery owner to not ask for prints but ask for the original neg or high res scan?

I was approached by a gallery owner asking for that and I didn't trust him,nor would I ever give a valuable negative to anyone.

 

L

[Dyn Llun]

Pete, In the big city galleries I visit (not as an artist!), silver prints barely scratch the surface. Every sort of what we used to call "alternetive processes" are now there and on the walls. Platinum, gum, and carbon are in the mix too. Together with silver, these are what you might think of as photography's oil painting.

 

I might as well admit it - every trend in the photography world is a surprise to me.

It's true that some 'alternative' processes are seen in galleries. It's just that I have no interest in them apart from platinum printing which I have done here. I produced a limited edition portfolio of platinum prints some years ago which sold out. It is probably the only process apart from silver / gelatin and chromogenic colour that I am interested in from my personal perspective. 

 

Ed Rooney is also correct when he talks about pro photographers having to earn a living from whatever source. I have always been in that category from age 15 and have undertaken every kind of photographic work to 'make a living'. I know how hard working and dedicated you have to be. I also continued to make and exhibit my 'personal' work alongside the 'commercial' stuff I did, funding my personal work with income from this paid work plus grants and sponsorship etc. It meant working twice as hard and twice as long of course. Over the years it is this personal work that is now bearing fruit in terms of prints sales etc. I would still have made this work anyway as it was what I loved doing. However, I never thought it might provide me with a substantial income and allow me to concentrate on and fund, more personal projects. I cannot imagine my photographic life without my personal work. As much as I enjoyed all aspects of my 'commercial' life and work, it was my personal projects that drove me on. I'm still 'at it'! 

[Phil Robinson]

I have seen "wealthy" and "photographer" used together, but usually in reference to close relatives of the Queen.

[Dyn Llun]

I have seen "wealthy" and "photographer" used together, but usually in reference to close relatives of the Queen.

Snowdon turned up at the Aberfan disaster and everyone there commented not on his photography but on the very expensive boots he was wearing to wade through the coal slurry. 

 

I got Lichfield to be a patron of an arts organisation I was part of years ago and he was personable and helpful. 

[Ed Rooney]

I'm a Yank who lived in England for a time. I have no ax to grinned regarding the Royals; there are positives and negatives about them. (The British Tourist Authority was a client of mine.)

 

I think it should be noted that both Snowdon and Lichfield were excellent professional photographers. Did having financing, fame, and connections help their careers? Of course it did! Anthony Armstrong Jones was a pro shooter before he married the Queen's sister. Patrick Lichfield learned his craft by working as a studio assistant. Back in the late '50s and '60s being a top fashion/celeb photographer was like being a rockstar. But even with assistants, what these guys did was hard work. 

 

Essentially, the OP was writing a fan letter to Vivian Maier. That's fine, but there's no reason to discredit photographers who choose a different path.

 

Here's some of Snowdon's personal work: http://www.snowdon-review.com/#/review/london/

 

Edo

[IanGibson]

I'm a Yank who lived in England for a time. I have no ax to grinned regarding the Royals; there are positives and negatives about them. (The British Tourist Authority was a client of mine.)

 

I think it should be noted that both Snowdon and Lichfield were excellent professional photographers. Did having financing, fame, and connections help their careers? Of course it did! Anthony Armstrong Jones was a pro shooter before he married the Queen's sister. Patrick Lichfield learned his craft by working as a studio assistant. Back in the late '50s and '60s being a top fashion/celeb photographer was like being a rockstar. But even with assistants, what these guys did was hard work. 

 

Essentially, the OP was writing a fan letter to Vivian Maler. That's fine, but there's no reason to discredit photographers who choose a different path.

 

Here's some of Snowdon's personal work: http://www.snowdon-review.com/#/review/london/

 

Edo

I seem to remember Prince Andrew having a tripod and Hasselblad set up for him to press the shutter so that he could take a photo of Edinburgh Castle many years ago which appeared on a stamp.

Also, one of the current princes could have a career in photojournalism http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/may-never-king-prince-harry-career-photography/

After all;

 

"The Daily Mail’s Picture Editor Paul Ashton commended the photos, saying, “Prince Harry has made the most of the available light and his pictures are perfectly exposed.”"

 

If only it were that easy.

[Robert Brook]

,,

[John Mitchell]

"Also cast a beady eye over the kind of work that Alamy likes to promote.  One of this month's:  http://www.alamy.com...rbalestier.html"

 

Beady eye cast. Interesting images. I wonder how well they do on Alamy.

 

BTW, by "personal work" do you mean non-assignment work?

[Robert Brook]

,,

[Martin P Wilson]

Robert, I think that is absolutely the right way to go. As a result of my recent business plan review I am in the process of going down the personal route, mine will be more reportage, but it is about putting more of ourselves into our work. The most successful photographers usually have a recognisable "something" about their work. Agents, the more contemporary libraries and even top end clients talk about having a "book" that shows the photographer's photogra[hic personality. I think that has always been the case for real success as a photographer - Beaton, Bailey, Lichfield, Mapplethorpe, McCullin, Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Ray-Jones, the list is endless.

 

I can't get excited about, or even mildly enthused, about generic stock. Especially as it is barely profitable (for most at least) so there is not the compensation of money in the bank to make it worthwhile. I guess I am not the only as it shows in most such work - it is almost all the same, no personality in the images. And as Robert suggests clients notice and choose the more personal vision where they can?

 

As part of my planning I was reading about Magnum recently and the suggestion there is that their photographers' journalistic projects are as much a way of life as a commercial enterprise these days - due to the changing market for photo stories. Not Magnum but consider Salgado, his work comes from an internal passion for telling the story, the commercial success comes from that passion and deep immersion in the topic. It shows in the work.

 

Good luck with the personal work, and its commercial success. At least we will enjoy our photography however profitable, or not!

[Dyn Llun]

Ed Rooney: "I'm a Yank who lived in England for a time. I have no ax to grinned regarding the Royals; there are positives and negatives about them",

 

UK Royals don't like the word axe mentioned in the same sentence as them. Especially if they are called Charles............

Left wing republican Welshmen love it however! 

 

I did like a number of Snowdon's portraits. However, he always felt he was 'slumming it' being a photographer and was rather dismissive of the profession thinking it was second best for him. (He was a frustrated and failed architect). There was an element of snobbery there which I found a little unpleasant. 

 

The interesting thing about this discussion is the emergence of the view that a photographer's 'personal' i.e. non-commissioned work is what can help sustain their interest and passion. As I have demonstrated, it can also become a very important part of your income over time. Also of course the number of fine photographers who's quiet lifetime's work emerges only after they have gone. Some, like me have always managed to live parallel lives doing paid work alongside my own 'personal' stuff. Others turn their personal work to commercial advantage right away and it becomes their style. Others, like Vivian Maler chose not to expose their work to a wider public in their lifetime and we appreciate it all only later. Who's to say what scenario is best? The photographer has some choice in the matter of course but not always, as it's sometimes the luck of the draw whether a gallery director / publisher likes your work in your lifetime and promotes it.  I'm happy with my choice but acknowledge that I have also been lucky. I don't need commissioned work at all now as print sales of my 'vintage' and new work more than sustains me. 

[Robert Brook]

,,

[Bill Brooks]

Being wealthy is all about avoiding competition.

 

If you produce photography as a commodity, you have extreme competition both inside Alamy and outside, and you will not be wealthy. If you develop your own unique style you should have a near monopoly, and you will have a chance of becoming wealthy.

 

Here is what a Silicon Valley venture capitalist says about people who look to him for financing for "me too" apps like another unnecessary version of Twitter. He is talking about software, but it applies to photography as well.

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142590/james-surowiecki/thinkers-and-tinkerers

 

If the link does not work here is the meat of his argument:

 

The enemy of any business, he argues, is competition, and if a start-up is doing what other companies are already doing, it has guaranteed itself competition. What the founders of companies should really want is a monopoly, and the best way to get that is to build something that others aren’t (for example, in Musk’s case, a stylish and reasonably affordable electric car). Thiel’s language here is attention-grabbing (aren’t monopolies bad things?), but he’s clearly onto something important: what businesses want to avoid is commoditization, where there is no real distinction between their product and those of their competitors. There is money to be made even in a competitive market, but it’s always difficult, and the profit margins are nearly always slim. Monopolies, by contrast, are lucrative. In Thiel’s mind, that is a good thing, since it is the prospect of earning a monopoly, and the profits that come with it, that encourages people to come up with profound innovations.


 

Of course, coming up with those isn’t exactly easy. And although Thiel’s book has plenty of interesting and concrete advice for entrepreneurs—Thiel suggests starting off by aiming to dominate a small market rather than trying to take a small slice out of a big market, and he stresses, as Isaacson does, the importance of sales and presentation in making even great products successful—he’s also clear that the vast majority of the economic value that start-ups create is created by a minuscule fraction of the start-ups out there. One could say that this means the chances of success are very small, but Thiel, a libertarian, frames it in different terms. The real question an entrepreneur has to be able to answer, he argues, is, What do you know that the rest of the world doesn’t? If you have a good answer to that question, you should try to turn your idea into reality.

[Martin P Wilson]

Some of the best advice I have received recently was that I needed to move upmarket into premium channels if want to make money (thanks Jools). I was already thinking along similar lines and it has made me much mor e focussed on what I want to do. Few will make serious money on Alamy, it is just doesn't feel like the marketplace for high-end sales, themed projects or assignment referrals. At least for where I want to go. Some people may make decent incomes or good top ups to other channel or assignment income.

 

I know that to move into the premium market I need to work and think differently - I believe I can raise my game both technically and qualitatively. The great thing is that challenge is inspiring me to do the sort of work I enjoy, meet interesting people along the way. I have a couple of ideas in mind where I have good access - I am already part of the community that will feature in my long term self-directed assignment. I have almost built a high quality (I hope) web site to show my new premium work completely separate from my mass market, ho-hum, stock library. It won't be a quick mway to make money (if it ever does), but it will be a lot more fun!

 

So once I am over tonight's hangover I get underway!

[Martin P Wilson]

Robert, that is spot on.

 

Actually I am not really bothered about being wealthier as such. I want to be able to do things I want to do, like spend time out with my camera, travel in my motorhome, sit on the beach or simply read That does not actually need much money. I am already in a position where I have most of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs but could do with a bit more on the self-actualization and perhaps the esteem front. Life is too short to chase yet more of the basic three needs and money for the sake of it.

 

So I only need a very small niche to give the modest extra income that would provide financial comfort, I don't need more stuff (cameras excepted of course ) and allow me to work on the self-actualisation. In fact it needs only to be big enough to provide around the equivalent of the median wage in the UK. So really the monopoly niche can be tiny. It only needs to be big enough for one person, me!