[Aristophanes]

No. They don't track self-employed. They only mention that 63% of people working in the field are self-employed. Their data only accounts for the 37% of the photographers who are on staff and classified as employees. If you work at Olin Mills Portrait Studios you are counted in those numbers. If you work for a news paper you are counted in those numbers. If you are a self-employed wedding photographer you are not counted in the numbers.

BLS is only tracking employment. They only track employees. They don't track self-employed.

63% is tracking.

They also extrapolate earnings from tax data. It says so in their notes.

And my Canadian stats are even more detailed, do track SE's, demonstrating serious erosion in earnings and positions in the vocation.

Both US and Canadian sources say that technology is eating away at the specific skill set.

And Getty Images ate the stock photo biz because it cratered due to massively falling demand in a sea of amateur offerings. The sports leagues I coach in used to have team photos done professionally by the same people who shoot weddings. Now it's all done by parents with pro gear and Facebook/website sharing. This has all happened in the last 5 years.

Even Nikon's latest ads for the D600 speak specifically to the "enthusiast" and not the pro. There's blunt realization that prosumer hobbyists drive the ILC market far, far more than pros. Pros now get their gear if it can sell on volume to other segments.

[Winder]

Fuji once hinted officially at an X-Pro 2 now is aiming low:

When did Fuji "hint" at an X-Pro-2 coming in 2013? The XP1 was announced in April of 2012 and is on at least a 2 year product cycle.

Mirrorless sales are down because of product cycles. 2012 saw the NEX-7, Fuji XP1, and the Olympus OM-D all hit the market in the Spring of 2012. All of those products are on a 2 year product cycle so 2013 will be a down year. Product cycles drive sales. At this point in the cycle people are expecting replacements to be announced and for prices to fall. People always hold off on buying at this point in the product cycle because they know better deals and better products are just around the corner.

[RonHendriks1966]

And Getty Images ate the stock photo biz because it cratered due to massively falling demand in a sea of amateur offerings. The sports leagues I coach in used to have team photos done professionally by the same people who shoot weddings. Now it's all done by parents with pro gear and Facebook/website sharing. This has all happened in the last 5 years.

I agree on this story. If I now go to a volleyballplay there are 5 or more photographers and the images are worth nothing anymore. I just this week announced to stop publicating womenssoccerimages on my facebook because this was just making any other image worthless. The trillins off images we make these days have never been so vapor in value (money or as remembrence) as ever before.

[Winder]

63% is tracking.

No. Footnote (1) states that the self-employed are NOT included in the statistics. They are very clear that they only provide data on wage earning employees.

(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.

(2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours; for those occupations where there is not an hourly mean wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data.

They also extrapolate earnings from tax data. It says so in their notes.

Where in the notes? Note #2 says that "the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data."

[Aristophanes]

No. Footnote (1) states that the self-employed are NOT included in the statistics. They are very clear that they only provide data on wage earning employees.

(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.

(2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours; for those occupations where there is not an hourly mean wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data.


Where in the notes? Note #2 says that "the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data."

Don't be dense.

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

They clearly posit growth in SE photographers. So they are extrapolating stats.

The Canadian link also tracks SE because that's on tax data. Guess what? It's a vocation under duress from do-it-yourselfers because technology reduces the professional expertise. Earnings for pro photographers are abysmal. You make more $$$ at Starbucks slinging java. Both government sources say exactly the same thing about the vocation: under pressure because tech is leveling the field between pro and amateur.

Pro photographers used to sell prints than no one else could make, either making them by hand or knowing the right lab output. The advent of web sharing (and ubiquity therein of non-critical resolution) has made most of that redundant. Pro photo studios are closing everywhere from Sears to Main Street because prints are no longer the output of choice.

None of this is new. The issue of extremely low wages for vocational photography has been around since before WW2. Digital is only exacerbating an already known issue and the online sharing is driving the stake in deeper:

The Online Photographer: Photography as an Occupation

At its heart photography is and always will be a dominantly vernacular medium with little need for professional interpretation save for the needs of the 1%. The middle class are no longer in the market for buying photos when they can make their own. That's the vast bulk of the market for even $3,000 cameras (very high-end lenses veer more towards the pro camp).

I am good friends with 2 pro photographers and they make most of their money now teaching, not shooting (like Scott Kelby and Thom Hogan, both of whom have spoken extensively about this fact). One has taken to writing books (very popular) because the NGO's that used to fund his work simply have their overseas staff (often locals) take the shots now. They just need the gear and an internet connection. The other guy loans me gear (D700 and lenses) and has watched his profession wither in the face of amateur sourced photos. This despite being NG published and being one of the first photogs to set foot in earthquake ravaged Haiti a few years back.

I am not saying the market is dying, but shrinking in the face of technical advances that wipe out the pro edge for a huge chunk of the market. As cameras move towards consumer electronics devices networked and all like our lightbulbs (Philips Hue Connected Bulb - Starter Pack - Apple Store (Canada)) they become commodity products requiring volume to sell. A dwindling number of pro photogs is no longer the market Pentax and others are selling into. Pros are not irrelevant, just much less relevant.

[hangman43]

Don't be dense.

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

They clearly posit growth in SE photographers. So they are extrapolating stats.

The Canadian link also tracks SE because that's on tax data. Guess what? It's a vocation under duress from do-it-yourselfers because technology reduces the professional expertise. Earnings for pro photographers are abysmal. You make more $$$ at Starbucks slinging java. Both government sources say exactly the same thing about the vocation: under pressure because tech is leveling the field between pro and amateur.

Pro photographers used to sell prints than no one else could make, either making them by hand or knowing the right lab output. The advent of web sharing (and ubiquity therein of non-critical resolution) has made most of that redundant. Pro photo studios are closing everywhere from Sears to Main Street because prints are no longer the output of choice.

None of this is new. The issue of extremely low wages for vocational photography has been around since before WW2. Digital is only exacerbating an already known issue and the online sharing is driving the stake in deeper:

The Online Photographer: Photography as an Occupation

At its heart photography is and always will be a dominantly vernacular medium with little need for professional interpretation save for the needs of the 1%. The middle class are no longer in the market for buying photos when they can make their own. That's the vast bulk of the market for even $3,000 cameras (very high-end lenses veer more towards the pro camp).

I am good friends with 2 pro photographers and they make most of their money now teaching, not shooting (like Scott Kelby and Thom Hogan, both of whom have spoken extensively about this fact). One has taken to writing books (very popular) because the NGO's that used to fund his work simply have their overseas staff (often locals) take the shots now. They just need the gear and an internet connection. The other guy loans me gear (D700 and lenses) and has watched his profession wither in the face of amateur sourced photos. This despite being NG published and being one of the first photogs to set foot in earthquake ravaged Haiti a few years back.

I am not saying the market is dying, but shrinking in the face of technical advances that wipe out the pro edge for a huge chunk of the market. As cameras move towards consumer electronics devices networked and all like our lightbulbs (Philips Hue Connected Bulb - Starter Pack - Apple Store (Canada)) they become commodity products requiring volume to sell. A dwindling number of pro photogs is no longer the market Pentax and others are selling into. Pros are not irrelevant, just much less relevant.

What does a 7 year old blog have to do with anything you have picked only things that apply to your theory and most of your links are out dated.
Here is a link to more up to date stats as of May 2012 not as bleak as you try to make it out to be you are not going to get rich but you can still make a living at it and this still does not include self employed.
Photographers
Here is one from 2001 there was an increase in mean hourly wage of over $4.00 and hour since then and almost $10000.00 per year increase
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2001/oes274021.htm

[Winder]

Don't be dense.

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

They clearly posit growth in SE photographers. So they are extrapolating stats.

Photographers
(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.

Re-read that until you understand it.

The wage data is for employees.

Their data shows 139,500 photographers as of 2010. 56,140 of those are employees. The wage data on that table is only for the 56,140 photographers who work as employees. If that data was for the 139,500 (the entire industry) then they would show that number next to the wage data. Copied from the BLS website.


Employment (1)
56,140

Employment RSE (3)
1.9 %

Mean hourly Wage
$17.47

Mean annual wage (2)
$36,330

So, to say for the hundredth time.... The wage data you are claiming does not count the 63% of the people who work in the industry who are self-employed. The wage data that you have posted only applies to the 56,140 people who are employees.

[Aristophanes]

Photographers
(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.

Re-read that until you understand it.

The wage data is for employees.

Their data shows 139,500 photographers as of 2010. 56,140 of those are employees. The wage data on that table is only for the 56,140 photographers who work as employees. If that data was for the 139,500 (the entire industry) then they would show that number next to the wage data. Copied from the BLS website.


Employment (1)
56,140

Employment RSE (3)
1.9 %

Mean hourly Wage
$17.47

Mean annual wage (2)
$36,330

So, to say for the hundredth time.... The wage data you are claiming does not count the 63% of the people who work in the industry who are self-employed. The wage data that you have posted only applies to the 56,140 people who are employees.

So what?

Did you read the earlier data from the link I posted.

It was from the same Bureau unequivocally stating the SE photographers earned LESS than salaried.

And both the US and Canadian data centres say exactly the same thing about how the pro labour pool is threatened in employment security, customers, and wages, because the DIY's can do the same...without pay.

And a whopping 55,000 people in the US?! Only? World's largest economy?

With a median wage under the national average?

Buying $6,000 lenses?

This is a market driving millions of FF sales?

Canon alone is expected to sell 9.2 million ILC's this year. Nikon 7. Worldwide all combined over 20 million. And these are from those 2 before their mirrorless offerings, so DSLR only.

There are nowhere near enough pros employed in salary or SE to drive this market. They *might* make up 5% of all purchasers worldwide.

Might.

But thanks for making my point. The pros don't really drive the development anymore. Maybe for a Nikon D4, but below that, small, small impact.

[Winder]

With a median wage under the national average?

And just what do you think the median per-capita income is in the USA? Obviously you don't know.
First look at US pay data, it’s awful | David Cay Johnston The median per-capita income is below $30,000. So the median per-capita income of $36,330 is above the national average.

And a whopping 55,000 people in the US?! Only? World's largest economy?

Which is only 37% of those working in the field. But, yes that is not very many people... there must not be much competition if your right.

It was from the same Bureau unequivocally stating the SE photographers earned LESS than salaried.

Copy and paste exactly what was said and link to it.

Buying $6,000 lenses?

Amazing. All of us lowly paid photographers with $20,000 in equipment, $8,000 tied up in a computer, color calibration, and dual 27" Ezio monitors..... How did we ever afford it. Because if your data is right, we're all broke.

But thanks for making my point. The pros don't really drive the development anymore. Maybe for a Nikon D4, but below that, small, small impact.

Its much bigger than you think. IF it was actually that small you would not see so many companies spending so much money to compete for the pro business. Sony wouldn't be investing so much in a FF Alpha or mirrorless.

[Aristophanes]

And just what do you think the median per-capita income is in the USA? Obviously you don't know.
First look at US pay data, it’s awful | David Cay Johnston The median per-capita income is below $30,000. So the median per-capita income of $36,330 is above the national average.

Which is only 37% of those working in the field. But, yes that is not very many people... there must not be much competition if your right.



Copy and paste exactly what was said and link to it.



Amazing. All of us lowly paid photographers with $20,000 in equipment, $8,000 tied up in a computer, color calibration, and dual 27" Ezio monitors..... How did we ever afford it. Because if your data is right, we're all broke.

Its much bigger than you think. IF it was actually that small you would not see so many companies spending so much money to compete for the pro business. Sony wouldn't be investing so much in a FF Alpha or mirrorless.

It is much much much smaller than you think.

And more than one government stats source says it is under pressure from amateurs.

And most portrait studios have closed.

And photojournalism is at least on a 30% decline.

Sony is not advertising to pros. And neither is Nikon. They advertise to enthusiasts.

The data YOU provided simply proves this is a relative low pay, high capital market with far too few paid photographers to drive even 10% of DSLR sales.

This is a vernacular enthusiasts hobby market, right up to $3,000 cameras and even above.

[Tonto]

Fine:

I expect a DFA*24-70 F2, a DFA*21 F1.8, a DFA*70-200 F2.8, a DFA 24-105 WR, and a DFA 400 F5.6 WR.

A DFA*24-70 would be perfect for use on my current cameras! Too bad Sigmas 24-70 isn't the best optically and the Tamron 28-75 doesn't go as wide and has noisy screw drive.

[Winder]

It was from the same Bureau unequivocally stating the SE photographers earned LESS than salaried.

You still have not copied and pasted this "unequivocal" data. Link please.

[Winder]

A DFA*24-70 would be perfect for use on my current cameras! Too bad Sigmas 24-70 isn't the best optically and the Tamron 28-75 doesn't go as wide and has noisy screw drive.

Sigma is rumored to be working on a replacement for the current 24-70.

[Aristophanes]

"Self-employed photographers typically do not earn as much than salaried photographers. This is because independent, freelance photographers usually have to buy and use their own personal equipment and this costs money."

Itself a repost of the same Bureau of Labour:

Photography Careers, Jobs, and Employment Information - CareerOverview.com | CareerOverview.com

[Aristophanes]

And a 2012 commentary from the guys I work for:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/qc/job_futures/statistics/5221.shtml

It mirrors the US findings and does include SE earnings as a reference.

You have a huge talent pool technically able to jump into the pool but very few decent paying jobs all competing against DIY. The loss of salaried jobs in the news sector just adds to the overall grief as how many if them start to do product and wedding photos? The outlook for pro photography is spotty at best. But the overall numbers speak volumes about how pros don't tilt camera development cycles with anywhere near the same weight as enthusiasts. Pros are important but less relevant as a market than ever before. Some long glass would not exist if it weren't for pros, but overall a wedding pro is much less important than selling a camera to the bride and groom. In the old days a Pentax 645 was a wedding camera. Now Uncle Harry with a D800 is as often as not taking the shot (seen that).