Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Donal Philby wrote: > > Here's the thing, like much of the rest > of the culture, in the US there are a few photographers able to bring > down the giant dollars, for the rest--dregs. I spoke to friend a couple > years ago who works as VP at McCann Erickson in NYC. She told me that > the $5000/day phtoographer were starving and the $1000/day people were > getting all the work. Of course, the later weren't making much money. I used to have a friend (haven't spoken to her in years) who'd gone to Harvard by winning scholarships and waitressing in burger joints (yes -- even at Bartley's, for those of you who know what I'm talking about). When she finished up, what she really wanted to do was be an investigative newspaper reporter, and she was a person who knew how to work hard, was keenly interested in social issues, at home in any company, who could really write -- in other words, well suited to the work. She got a beginning spot on a local paper and worked at it for a few years, occasionally having a piece picked up by the wire services. She was as poor as a church mouse, because the newspapers paid next to nothing to beginning reporters. I mean it -- not much over minimum wage, and if you've ever known anyone who was paid close to minimum wage in the Boston area, you knew someone who was living on a shoestring. How could the newspapers get away with this? Because most of the beginning reporters she worked with were getting a fat check from their trust funds or from mom and dad every month. She was one of the few who actually had to live on the money she was paid. There are a jillion university graduates of varying ability in the United States who want to be reporters, including many children of the rich, and so the newspapers pay the lowest amount of money the market will bear. I imagine the situation is similar in photography. It seems very unlikely to me that the situation will improve for photographers unless the market suddenly demands a level of skill that can only be provided by real experts who are in short supply. Some of the exceptions are photographers who are, in effect, brands unto themselves -- in a generally healthy economy there will be plenty of customers who are willing to pay big bucks for big names. Or photographers who have a particular technical skill, like very high-speed flash photography. But print advertising, or photojournalism? I doubt very much that most editors can see a difference in these categories between real artistry and snapshots. - -Patrick P.S. My friend eventually got a fellowship and went to graduate school in another area.