Photography: A Rodney Dangerfield Profession?

Considering the skill, creativity, and know-how it takes to snap decent images, you'd think photographers would get plenty of respect, right? I'm talking about those who shoot quality images, regardless of genre. And you'd think they'd get that respect not only for their abilities, but for the investments they make in terms of cameras and other gear.

In many people's eyes, though, being a photographer isn't considered a "real" job. And there's a reason for that: Most photographers, it seems, aren't paid very well. Not too long ago, a "photographer," posting on a photographer's forum, told me I should get a real job. This, from a guy who calls himself a "photographer." (Albeit he doesn't claim professional status.) He also is a guy who regularly participates on that particular forum and who attends workshops and other events. Go figure, right? Could it be that part of the problem is photographers respecting each other? I don't know. I'm not a... uhh... whatever people who study those kinds of human behaviors and attitudes might be. A sociologist, maybe? (Sorry if my ignorance is showing.)

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, recent earnings statistics seem to bear this out:

"Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $26,080 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $18,380 and $37,370. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $15,000, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $54,180. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $32,800 for newspapers and periodicals and $23,100 for other professional, scientific, and technical services.

Salaried photographers — more of whom work full time — tend to earn more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves solely through their art."

Obviously, these statistics include all kinds of photographers: Including those employed by companies like Sears and K-Mart and who work in those company's in-store studios mostly shooting babies and young children for proud parents. Photographers of that variety aren't paid well at all; not much more than minimum wage. I also believe the USDL's statistics might include shooters who claim they're pro photographers on their tax returns, but who use that claim as a way to write-off expenses for, what amounts to, an expensive hobby.

When it comes to becoming a professional photographer, especially in certain genres, some good advice to those just starting out might be, "Don't quit your day job just yet." And for those who struggle and it just ain't happening? Well, either you should Keep on keepin' on! or, at the risk of offending a few people, you might consider getting a "real" job.

Today's dark and less-than-good-news update is accompanied by images of Margo shot in a dark, B&W, 50's, B-movie style. I used a single light source: A monolight mounted inside an old, gutted, Mole-Richardson 1K Baby with the light focused through a Fresnel lens.