Money to be made in Photography?

[RossiT]

Photography has been my hobby for years, mainly sports and motorsport. As much as I would love to go into business and make it full time I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

What I interested in is how I can earn some extra income, is there money to be made specialising in sports and motorsport photography, how do freelancers sell to websites, papers and magazines and what sort of money are we talking about?

Many Thanks

[muppetdave]

Can't answer with experience, but first step would be get a copy of the freelance photographers guide - that will tell you who to contact at mags/publishers etc and the type of fees that can be expected. Alternative is to build contacts with teams and try and pursue that route - perhaps with PR if you can write?

[RobDickinson]

Making money especially in motorsport etc will be damned hard.

[x5x3]

I guess it depends how you define money - making £1K is achievable, making £10K is a challenge, making a decent living is very very tough indeed.

[jurbie]

I know of very few people who make money out of motorsport photography however I do know quite a few who have quit because a once profitable business has died a death after the market has been flooded by hundreds of wannabes giving their pictures away for nothing.

If you are an exceptional talent, are prepared to commit fully to the challenge and have an agile business brain then you will make a few quid. If you just want to get trackside once in a while you'll be lucky to re-coup the cost of your public liability insurance.

[andy-xr]

How does the saying go...? I'll show you how to make a small fortune out of photography

Just start with a large fortune

[TRB]

There's a lad who goes to the BTCC. He takes pics, gets the prints signed and sells them from a little gazebo thing and seems to do ok.

I used to help a friend out who ran a sports picture agency. The pics were wired to the office (where I worked), and then uploaded to the FTP servers at the newspapers (probably more modern now). If they used a pic (even back page) it was a surprisingly little amount of money (hundreds not thousands), so it's all about building a catalogue and getting repeat uses. Also with different regional editions of papers, it was a nightmare chasing where pics were used but not paid for. It's hard to get passes for the big footy leagues etc, so you have to start doing lower league games (with less use, less £, and more specialised/local press). You used to be able to get commissioned to cover a particular game for a particular paper and earn a fixed fee (not great, but at least get guaranteed £).

I do have a mate who is a very successful sports photographer working for one of the big outfits, but I guess for every one who makes it, thousands don't.

Probably more lucrative to do a few weddings.

[Piglet]

jurbie said:

I know of very few people who make money out of motorsport photography however I do know quite a few who have quit because a once profitable business has died a death after the market has been flooded by hundreds of wannabes giving their pictures away for nothing.

If you are an exceptional talent, are prepared to commit fully to the challenge and have an agile business brain then you will make a few quid. If you just want to get trackside once in a while you'll be lucky to re-coup the cost of your public liability insurance.

This. It's a really tough market that is full of people giving away images to "get a foot on the ladder", they fail to recognise that there is no ladder to move up as behind them will be a whole new set of people giving away their prints so there is very little need for clients to pay for images.

Media access to a circuit is just that, the ability to take photographs for media purposes - if you want to sell prints generally (as in the example given for BTCC rounds) you will need an additional commercial licence from the rights holders (usually the circuits and/or the promoters in the case of big meetings).

There are a few people who make a living from motorsport photography but many more who have given up.

[Rogue86]

jurbie said:

business has died a death after the market has been flooded by hundreds of wannabes giving their pictures away for nothing.

This. Even local wedding photography seems to be going down this route.

[x5x3]

Rogue86 said:

This. Even local wedding photography seems to be going down this route.

but who's fault is that - last few weddings I have been to the amateurs have had the same kit as the pros, the hired guy got the best posed photos but for the candid shots it was open season.

I take my camera and send the shots I take to the happy couple for free as do most amateurs/hobbyists.

[Rogue86]

x5x3 said:

but who's fault is that - last few weddings I have been to the amateurs have had the same kit as the pros, the hired guy got the best posed photos but for the candid shots it was open season.

I take my camera and send the shots I take to the happy couple for free as do most amateurs/hobbyists.

I'd say it's the fault of the guy who is giving away the free images. Kit doesn't make a good photographer with even the best auto modes available, but there's a big difference between free and £800+. In relatively austere times, that's a lot of money to save even if the quality is poorer.

[Crafty_]

To do motorsport stuff you'll end up needing to be accredited, which means you get a bib and can go trackside etc. This is not that easy to do, as photography has become quite popular of late. I believe some tracks will want evidence of you being published in news / magazines.

I think if you approach it with the mindset of doing it for fun and if you happen to make some money its a bonus..

[x5x3]

Rogue86 said:

x5x3 said:

but who's fault is that - last few weddings I have been to the amateurs have had the same kit as the pros, the hired guy got the best posed photos but for the candid shots it was open season.

I take my camera and send the shots I take to the happy couple for free as do most amateurs/hobbyists.

I'd say it's the fault of the guy who is giving away the free images. Kit doesn't make a good photographer with even the best auto modes available, but there's a big difference between free and £800+. In relatively austere times, that's a lot of money to save even if the quality is poorer.

not really - a modern SLR means that in ordinary conditions the quality will be high - even given moderate skills. It is easy to see why people will not want to pay for a "pro" to take their wedding pictures. I'm not saying the "pro" is not skilled but the alternative is now very acceptable.

[Frik]

I disagree. There may be people that accept an enthusiastic amateur to take their photos (friends of mine did; I declined their request) but you still get what you pay for.

[tog]

As with all forms if professional photography, taking the pictures is the easy part. Running a viable business is the hard part, and it is getting harder every year as rates come down and competition goes up.

[x5x3]

Frik said:

I disagree. There may be people that accept an enthusiastic amateur to take their photos (friends of mine did; I declined their request) but you still get what you pay for.

can you explain how that is true - what does the "pro" do that the "enthusiastic amateur" with the same kit does not?

[Phunk]

From my experience it seems to be more about who you know and your interpersonal skills than your actual photography skills.

As long as you aren't totally rubbish and have good chat and know the right people there is plenty of work to be had.

[Olivera]

It can be done if you are exceptionally good and prepared to work hard at it. A friend of mine is a (very) successful photographer who spends about 50% of his time working for car magazines, and the other 50% of the time on his own photo collage work. I've no idea what he earns, but I'd guess well above the national average wage, albeit with at least £20k shelled out on Nikkon/photography gear.

[Frik]

x5x3 said:

Frik said:

I disagree. There may be people that accept an enthusiastic amateur to take their photos (friends of mine did; I declined their request) but you still get what you pay for.

can you explain how that is true - what does the "pro" do that the "enthusiastic amateur" with the same kit does not?

We're veering off topic, but I would have thought the answer was obvious. The difference between a decent pro and an amateur will be consistency. An amateur may achieve decent exposure, composition and creativity to get some good shots but their hit rate won't be nearly as good and you get very few opportunities to get this right at a wedding.

[Phunk]

In my experience (most of the time!) the better the gear, the worse the photographer, some of the best photographers I know have the cheapest cameras!