Author Topic: Article about the decline in income for nature photographers (Read 14052 times)

ArenaCreative · « **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2015, 14:01 »

Most birders are starving artists... they don't do it for the money, but rather the recognition in Audubon magazine or the warm fuzzy feeling of nailing the focus with their super-telephoto setups. It's not easy, and I give them a lot of credit for the passion they have for their craft. I give even more birders credit who can actually find ways of making a living solely on that niche. Covering their gear cost is probably doable. They basically are like hunters who use lenses instead of rifles. No thanks. Not my cup 'o tea

marthamarks · « **Reply #26 on:** May 12, 2015, 14:32 »

Quote from: ArenaCreative on May 12, 2015, 14:01

Most birders are starving artists... they don't do it for the money, but rather the recognition in Audubon magazine or the warm fuzzy feeling of nailing the focus with their super-telephoto setups. It's not easy, and I give them a lot of credit for the passion they have for their craft. I give even more birders credit who can actually find ways of making a living solely on that niche. Covering their gear cost is probably doable. They basically are like hunters who use lenses instead of rifles. No thanks. Not my cup 'o tea

No argument with most of what you wrote. And I suspect the vast majority of people who "hunt" birds with a camera instead of a rifle would agree with it too.

Fortunately, very few of us are "starving artists." If we were, we'd be buying studio lights and waxing euphoric over our latest attempts to shoot an isolated peach, pile of cashews, or antique teacup.

And in that regard, I definitely agree on one thing you wrote: No thanks. Not my cup 'o tea

pancaketom · « **Reply #27 on:** May 12, 2015, 14:51 »

Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.

marthamarks · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2015, 15:37 »

Quote from: pancaketom on May 12, 2015, 14:51

Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.

Bingo!

JanetCA · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2015, 21:48 »

There is something satisfying about nature photography that inanimate shoots dont provide. i am glad to have a backyard bustling with feral activity

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** May 27, 2015, 18:26 »

I just caught up on Monday's Springwatch Unsprung (A BBC nature programme).
Martin LeMay, the weaselpecker bloke, was on, and his image raised over £2000 for charity from the newspapers who published it.
So it wasn't as if he undercut other photographers, he just didn't take the money himself.

polar · « **Reply #31 on:** May 27, 2015, 22:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2015, 18:26

I just caught up on Monday's Springwatch Unsprung (A BBC nature programme).
Martin LeMay, the weaselpecker bloke, was on, and his image raised over £2000 for charity from the newspapers who published it.
So it wasn't as if he undercut other photographers, he just didn't take the money himself.

Good to hear that someone benefited from the use of the photo.

I had a good laugh at the term "weaselpecker." Great coinage -- both apt and hilarious.

marthamarks · « **Reply #32 on:** May 27, 2015, 23:25 »

Quote from: polar on May 27, 2015, 22:47

I had a good laugh at the term "weaselpecker." Great coinage -- both apt and hilarious.

Me too. Gotta love it!!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** May 28, 2015, 23:30 »

This isn't just wildlife it's Microstock. Just like you wrote, time, equipment, skill, to make money on Micro does not match up with the return.

Maybe people hoped it would, but the days of pay for a few thousand, stock images, are OVER!

Make photos for love, not for money.

Quote from: pancaketom on May 12, 2015, 14:51

Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.

marthamarks · « **Reply #34 on:** May 28, 2015, 23:55 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 28, 2015, 23:30

Make photos for love, not for money.

Yep, Pete, love is it. Stock sales only pay for a new lens every now and then.

And I realize how I'm lucky I am to be able to say that. Most stockers can't.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Article about the decline in income for nature photographers (Read 14052 times)

ArenaCreative

marthamarks

pancaketom

marthamarks

JanetCA

ShadySue

polar

marthamarks

Uncle Pete

marthamarks

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors