[Leica] Professional photographers?

Thu Sep 20 00:22:30 PDT 2018

What I always did is check the yellow pages. If they were not in there then I didn't believe the "I'm a photographer" stuff which we all get all the time.
For every person who is serious about photography or who heads off to the photo studio every morning as I did there's a million who just wants to get a shot of Aunt Martha during thanksgiving. But where this vocation is different is many of those people find it necessary to refer to themselves as photographers. It's really uncanny. If they collected glass unicorns it would not occur to them to say they were glass blowers.
Photography will always be way more an avocation than a vocation, but with a bit more craziness involved.
Now I'm not sure if there are yellow pages any more but there is this thing called the internet and in minutes you can see or not see the pix and easily know.
It is a phenomenon the amount of people who will tell you they are photographers on top of trading stocks because they own a camera but this yet another convoluted troll we get periodically from this source which basically denies the legitimacy of an entire profession do to IRS income rules and whatever else is often a favorite of those who could simply just never make the commitment. Nobody else is allowed to be a photographer because they were not a photographer.
I think many of the people I've known many who whom were photographers would love to know that the whole thing is really a bunch of baloney and the focus of theirs lives have been really just an illusion.
For me the "I'm a photographer or also a photographer" stuff  is a really a pain because whenever people ask me what my occupation has been and I tell them their eyes glaze over. It's simply what half the people they meet say.

Mark William Rabiner

On 9/19/18, 1:19 PM, "LUG on behalf of Tina Manley via LUG" <lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of lug at leica-users.org> wrote:

    I still manage to make a living as a professional photographer.  I do it
    with a combination of stock sales and assignments.  It gets harder every
    year because everybody is a photographer these days!  I do go to a lot of
    places that most travelers do not and since they are places that are in the
    news today (Syria, Iran, Central America) the photos sell.  I also have
    access through the agencies I work with as a mission consultant that most
    people do not have.

    My husband is my business manager and he makes sure that I make a profit
    three out of five years.  He tells me when I can and cannot afford to add
    more equipment.

    I still find Leica equipment to be worth the expense due to the quality and
    durability.  I very much regret the one-year detour I made with Canon.  The
    new SL is the best camera I have ever used and the lenses are outstanding.
    I'm still able to carry them around all day, thank goodness!

    I am probably even more in the minority since I am a female professional
    photographer and Leica user!!

    Tina

    On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin via LUG <
    lug at leica-users.org> wrote:

    > When I mentioned the almost impossibility of selling figurative photos at
    > art and photo shows several LUG members suggested that I repost this note.
    > It was written half a decade ago and is still relevant today.
    >
    > "A couple of truths. Photography is not legally a profession in most parts
    > of the USA. Anyone can call themselves a "professional photographer." There
    > are no exams, no licenses, no boards of regulation, no educational
    > requirements. Your doctor, dentist, architect, lawyer, accountant,
    > podiatrist, and even your kid's kindergarten teacher are professionals.
    > Photography is either a hobby or a business. In some communities you must
    > have a business license to operate. But having a business license does not
    > mean that you are legally a professional. According to the IRS, if you
    > don't make money three years out of five, it is a hobby. The Bureau of
    > Labor Statistics data shows that there are 152,000 people in the U.S. who
    > classify themselves as photographers but only about 10% of those make a
    > living which puts them solidly in the middle class. If the practice of
    > photography is their only income, the rest qualify for food stamps. Many
    > LUG members who profess to making a nice living from photogr
    >  aphy are not free lancers but are or were gainfully employed by some
    > organization who paid them to take pictures.
    >
    > Second, photographic equipment has evolved to the point where little
    > technical knowledge is required to make adequate photographs. Anyone can
    > pick up a camera, point it at a subject and get a perfectly exposed, in
    > focus, image. It is all in knowing where to point the camera and that
    > facility is shared by many who do not classify themselves as photographers.
    > There is no long apprenticeship learning the fundamentals. The entry bar is
    > very low. This extends to commercial photography as well as pictures of
    > Aunt Julia. A national distributor of mechanical fasteners in my
    > neighborhood photographs all the pictures in his voluminous catalog
    > himself. "Why," he says, "pay thousands to a professional photographer. How
    > much skill does it take to make a picture of a bolt?"
    >
    > Third, professional quality equipment is cheap and readily available.
    > Canon expects to sell 26 million cameras this year. Two million will be of
    > professional level. Nikon, Sony, and even Leica will add to the sum,
    > perhaps 5 million pro cameras in total. Clearly there is no shortage of
    > equipment which can meet the highest standards for publication. And the
    > stuff is easier than ever to use.
    >
    > The LUG has over 1000 members all of whom have a high interest in
    > photography and probably possess professional level equipment. How many of
    > us make a living from photography alone? Just photography. No other day
    > jobs, investment, trust fund, Social Security, retirement benefits or
    > spousal income included. I mean a real living. The average middle class
    > income in the US is $40,000. The poverty level is under $20,000. Remember
    > you can make that much by frying hamburgers at Burger King. If you don't
    > make an adequate living income from photography, no matter how skilled you
    > are, you are practicing a hobby. Unless more than 100 LUG members are
    > gainfully employed in photography, I maintain that the "professionals"
    > amongst us are a distinct minority, unrepresentative of the interests of
    > the entire group. If we listen to them we might as well expect all real
    > photographers to only use Leicas.
    >
    > Larry Z
    >
    >
    > A couple of truths. Photography is not legally a profession in most parts
    > of the USA. Anyone can call themselves a "professional photographer." There
    > are no exams, no licenses, no boards of regulation, no educational
    > requirements. Your doctor, dentist, architect, lawyer, accountant,
    > podiatrist, and even your kid's kindergarten teacher are professionals.
    > Photography is either a hobby or a business. In some communities you must
    > have a business license to operate. But having a business license does not
    > mean that you are legally a professional. According to the IRS, if you
    > don't make money three years out of five, it is a hobby. The Bureau of
    > Labor Statistics data shows that there are 152,000 people in the U.S. who
    > classify themselves as photographers but only about 10% of those make a
    > living which puts them solidly in the middle class. If the practice of
    > photography is their only income, the rest qualify for food stamps. Many
    > LUG members who profess to making a nice living from photogra
    >  phy are not free lancers but are or were gainfully employed by some
    > organization who paid them to take pictures.
    >
    > Second, photographic equipment has evolved to the point where little
    > technical knowledge is required to make adequate photographs. Anyone can
    > pick up a camera, point it at a subject and get a perfectly exposed, in
    > focus, image. It is all in knowing where to point the camera and that
    > facility is shared by many who do not classify themselves as photographers.
    > There is no long apprenticeship learning the fundamentals. The entry bar is
    > very low. This extends to commercial photography as well as pictures of
    > Aunt Julia. A national distributor of mechanical fasteners in my
    > neighborhood photographs all the pictures in his voluminous catalog
    > himself. "Why," he says, "pay thousands to a professional photographer. How
    > much skill does it take to make a picture of a bolt?"
    >
    > Third, professional quality equipment is cheap and readily available.
    > Canon expects to sell 26 million cameras this year. Two million will be of
    > professional level. Nikon, Sony, and even Leica will add to the sum,
    > perhaps 5 million pro cameras in total. Clearly there is no shortage of
    > equipment which can meet the highest standards for publication. And the
    > stuff is easier than ever to use.
    >
    > The LUG has over 1000 members all of whom have a high interest in
    > photography and probably possess professional level equipment. How many of
    > us make a living from photography alone? Just photography. No other day
    > jobs, investment, trust fund, Social Security, retirement benefits or
    > spousal income included. I mean a real living. The average middle class
    > income in the US is $40,000. The poverty level is under $20,000. Remember
    > you can make that much by frying hamburgers at Burger King. If you don't
    > make an adequate living income from photography, no matter how skilled you
    > are, you are practicing a hobby. Unless more than 100 LUG members are
    > gainfully employed in photography, I maintain that the "professionals"
    > amongst us are a distinct minority, unrepresentative of the interests of
    > the entire group. If we listen to them we might as well expect all real
    > photographers to only use Leicas."
    >
    > Larry Z
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Leica Users Group.
    > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
    >

    -- 
    Tina Manley
    www.tinamanley.com
    tina-manley.artistwebsites.com
    http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley
    <http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html>

    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information