BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Photography Careers and Making Money

Calling on Mark, Jerry, etc.

I have to make a few presentations at a local high school career day on professional photography.

They have asked me to provide general income predictions for ALL genres of photography - from portrait photogs, to stock to photojournalists.

I can give them a generalization on portrait photgraphers and photojournalists in small markets, however, I'm not quite sure on what photojournalists in larger markets can expect to make per year. I also don't know what commercial and stock photographers make. For instance, does a photojournalist with a magazine make more or less than one with, say, the Chicago Tribune? And I know they'll ask me what a National Geographic photographer makes.

Here's the categories I'm going to have to talk about as far as income:

Small market photojournalists
Large market photojournalists
National magazine photographers
National Geographic photographers
Stock photographers (I know this varies, but let's say they're living off of this income)
Commercial photographers (I have no idea)

And can you make more freelancing or being a staff photographer?

I realize you may not have all the info, but I thought you could at least point me in the right direction.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

To love this question, log in above
November 16, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
November 16, 2006

Statistics show that for a photographer in 2002 the average annual salary was $24,040. The lowest 10% earned less than $14,640, the middle 50% between $17,740 and $34,910 while the highest 10% earned upwards of $49,920. For a photographer employed by a newspaper or periodical the average annual salary was $31,460, while in other professional and scientific services the average was $21,860.

Source: http://www.bls.gov
Source: http://www.nppa.org

To love this comment, log in above
November 16, 2006

I usually tell them if money is a significant issue to them then they should consider a different line of work. OTOH, if they go to college and get a four-year degree, preferably in something that they can fall back on if they don't make it as photographers, AND if they learn the business practices applied to this field AND how to market themselves successfully AND if they're really good at photography, then the sky can be the limit and there's no telling how much their earning potential can be. It also depends on things like secondary income from things like stock photography. I put two kids through college on that income. [knocking on wood]

Then I usually add that by the time they finish college in 4-6 years down the road, the industry will probably have taken another dramatic turn, for better (or worse) and there's just no telling what will happen by then or even in less time.

I don't think labor statistics, among others are all that accurate in this industry because there are just way to many variables from geographic location, specialty if any, to whether a photographer lied on the survey. Same is true with any others like press photogs (NPPA members are notorious for inflating their income stats. >)

That's my spin on it.
Take it light.
Mark

To love this comment, log in above
November 16, 2006

I have to agree with Mark on this. An example is a photog up in Idaho that I hope to aprentice next summer, made a million+ last year.

To love this comment, log in above
November 18, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
November 19, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
November 19, 2006