Making a Living: Being an Image-Maker in Times of Change

[yoclay]

This is a carry-over from the Content and Point of View thread. I would like to bring it's focus back to the original issues and yet not forget this new topic. I think there is a need to discuss it as well.

Here is my original post from that thread in response to a post from Jean_Dodge:

"The age of the big studio is gone, but the age of the empowered amateur may already be here - and it just doesn't pay, or penetrate the way we might like it to."


Hi Jean,
Wow, that is quite a passionate post and there is a lot to pick up on there, but one thing leaped out at me and that is your comment about the other result of democritisation: it just doesn't pay. Like musicians, I have been through this cycle as a photographer. I earn less today than when I was starting out 20 years ago. I have done international fashion magazines, Louis Vuitton, Coca-Cola, Neiman Marcus, etc. and yet I have seen all day rates descend to a one third of what they were even 5 years ago. Why? Because of the digital age, the rise of Getty and Corbus, online stock and the citizen journalist. EVERYONE is a photographer today. On one level this is a good thing. On another level that whole business model of photographer and agent is gone, and it is not going back. Many magazines no longer pay photographers-because they don't need to. There are so many photographers out there, that many are willing to even pay the expenses of the shoot. Even the term photographer is going to leave us I think, since multimedia is a growing expectation (including video) I suspect we will more likely be known as "image-makers". You just have to look at the mutlimedia presentations on the New York Times webpage to see how quickly this is happening. Photojournalists that don't adapt to this need will probably disappear. This is absolutely the trend that Canon has seen and why we have this camera in our hands now.

So what does this mean for the cinema?

It means that independent cinema is on the rise. It means there are folks like us producing our own content - or at least trying. It means that like in photography, there is a limited pot and many sources of financing are starting to sprinkle a little here and a little there, but are no longer willing to invest in the way they used to. Small budgets don't shoot film anymore, producers (if you are lucky enough to get one who would be willing to try to help you find some money) EXPECT you to shoot digital. Cheaper for everyone. Canon 5D shoots film-like quality? Excellent, we'll buy a couple. In a few years it will be: "Excellent, what do you mean you don't already have your cameras?"

There will always be big budget films. Investors need vehicles. But it will go the way of Broadway. The big amusement park style of spectacle and it will definitely be in 3D. True drama will be left for off-off-off-off Broadway or only the most expensive stars as Hollywood investment opportunities. In a funny way it is the equivalent of the shrinking middle-class which the industry may experience. I suspect the divide will grow between the blockbuster and the working class drama.

We may be able to create art, but will we be able to pay the rent?

Anyhow, I will be back as I pick apart your post for all the interesting points you have made. I will definitely check out some of the films you have mentioned. Thanks again for your contribution.

best,
yo-yo-yoclay

So there it is.
A really interesting question has been raised about how we adapt to these new times. The photographer is becoming a videographer - an IMAGE-MAKER in fact. As our definitions are changing, so to are the business models. The old ways of earning a living are becoming less and less lucrative. What are your experiences? Where do you think we are going? Have you discovered a new direction where you can once again find a source of income and be creative at the same time? Let us know!



PS>>I invite some of the original posters to copy paste some of their relevant passages from the other post to kick start off this particular thread as well. I would also like to say that I have asked Antiplastik to become a moderator especially to support dialogue in this section (Artistic Talk) because it is important to me and because I need to keep my neurons moving in that direction. He has very kindly accepted and this of course explains the yellow highlighting of my alias. Any or all of your suggestions to better improve the blood flow here is greatly appreciated. You are all moderators too as far as I am concerned!

After a year of portrait photography (and little journalism photography for newspaper) I realized there was no big money to get so I started to work as a wedding photographer (with album making) last year with the goal to do singly this in the next few years as an income. Grab a target audience with money and service them (like good wedding photography) - thats the magic trick. And when the photography disappears (this will happen), well, I dont know. Thats why i study economic science to do something different in the future
What i want to say: big money with photography in the future, is not possible for the most of us. We all have to evolve, get more into multimedia, film, 3d, whatever.

Im an art director from ad agency background. I can say that the change is affecting not only the production industry ( photo/video/post ) but the creative industry as well ( agencies/design studios ), designers and ADs are increasingly doing their own photography/motion/media and agencies are creating in-house production firms, while boutique production studios are beginning to expand into the agency's territory. Its becoming a free-for-all, the lines between disciplines have already blurred. Instead of a long client-agency-production-freelancer model we are seeing everything condensed to client-creative model.

This is the age of the digital generalist, able to produce content across for all mediums at once ( print/broadcast/film/interactive/mobile ). It will bring death to some, and opportunity for others. Like an ice age, - many big dinosaur companies with unsustainable business plans will die, while leaner, faster, more adaptable species will survive. However, that also means much stronger competition ( with the Internet, the whole world is now your competition ), bringing individual profits down.

Basically, the hierarchy is gone and now everyone is competing with everyone. Ultimately, quality content will still reign supreme.

MT

@magnum theory

In the commercial world there is certainly an increasing need to cater for entire creative ideas, to be able to put together a whole concept, production and even distribution whereas in the past that 'whole' would be spread across many agencies, freelancers and creatives.

What is exciting with this I think is that we can all have our hands on the materials and technologies, which certainly leads to new creative expression. So: rather than having to define a concept in the abstract on paper, we can play with all aspects of the concept as we go along, creating new techniques and ideas from the materials themselves. As I said in the other thread, I think this is why animators are a particularly interesting group of creatives who have been dealing in this area for a long time.

Oh, boy...
I've been through this "change" twice - as an animator and also as a TV production facility owner. I was caught with my pants down, worse, as an animator. I had just spent tens of thousands of dollars on a Silicon Graphics workstation with the most sophisticated 3D animation software there was at the time when, a few months later, they ported said software to the PC. It had taken me months to learn the software (and I had been doing 3D animation for about 10 years, then) on top of the investment. Suddenly, hundreds of kids with PCs and cracked versions of the software entered the market charging fast food money for mediocre animations. Prices plummeted, as most clients (especially corporate) couldn't tell good from bad or didn't think good was worth so much more than mediocre. I still have my SGI workstation in a box. Its resale value was less then a PC and I decided to keep it so that, one day, I can proudly display it as a decoration piece and the reminder of a golden era. Now, was this totally bad? On one hand, I practically gave up 3D animation. The constant learning curve wasn't worth it anymore. I decided to focus more on compositing, color grading, and visual effects. But my experience as an animator is extremely useful in these areas. On the other hand, updating and maintaing my equipment became a lot more affordable. No more expensive software maintenance licenses, cheaper hardware and software, etc. Now, the biggest plus I saw with this change was the emergence of a few talents who wouldn't have made it when hardware prices were so prohibitive that only those with enough cash could get in the game. I met this kid, who read some of my magazine articles, who really wanted to be an animator. He couldn't afford a big workstation and he couldn't afford even the cheapest software. But using his dad's PC with a cracked copy of a 3D animation program I had recommended, he kept learning on his own and, suddenly, he was turning out some great stuff. A couple of years later he was a lead animator at a major Hollywood house. I am sure that a lot of talented people took advantage of the change. As for myself, I also adapted. I still do some animation, once in a while. But when clients demand more complex stuff, I just hire from this huge pool of reasonably priced animators out there and I work as an animation director. Less money, but a lot less work, too. And they all have their own gear, so no more constant equipment investments. BTW, the SGI did pay for itself in a few jobs, during this transition. But it didn't bring in the kind of profit that was expected at the time.

As a production company owner, it was a similar thing. I got in the game when the cost of the basic equipment to produce broadcast-quality work was well into the six figures. It was a very nice time. People in the business were all professionals and clients did appreciate our work. In fact, most new clients were very proud that they could pay for professional production. We made a pretty comfortable living. Sure, equipment upgrades and maintenance were really expensive, but we also earned well. Then something happened (it was really a first phase) - S-VHS came to the market. It wasn't broadcast-quality, but it ate into the very profitable corporate market. Equipment was so affordable that a lot of people got in the business with no prior training just because they had the gear to make videos and, again, they charged a lot less for it. Most corporate clients couldn't tell the difference between good and bad videos, so our market shrank. We had to focus on broadcast work and corporate clients who demanded and could afford high production values. To sum it up, the pie was divided into more slices. The next phase started with DV. Suddenly, it was even cheaper than S-VHS and one could actually produce broadcast-quality material. When this happened, I saw an opportunity instead of a catastrophe. I jumped in as soon as a broadcast grade DV/DVCAM camera was available. It cost a fraction of my previous analog broadcast camera and it offered higher image quality. How was it advantageous for me to ride this wave? For one, I accepted the game rules. While bigger facilities were still investing well into the six figures on digital Betacam and such, I could offer products with very similar quality by taking advantage of emerging digital post technology. I was right in the middle price range. Corporate clients who were not happy with the work of inexperienced video makers were willing to pay a little more, but couldn't afford to pay for Digi-Beta productions. I had found a niche market. Besides. I could cater to the same broadcast clients as before, but now with more versatile, less expensive, higher quality gear. I was glad to say goodbye to dinosaur analog technology. Unfortunately, I saw many Digi-Beta facilities go belly up. Lesson learned? Adapt or die... Third phase came when pro grade non-linear systems became affordable. That's when an associate (who was also smart enough to adapt) left his fully functional and up-to-date $100K Avid gathering dust in a corner to edit a feature in a new Final Cut Pro system that paid for itself in the fist small job. Why? Because it was faster and a lot more intuitive. I had adopted nonlinear editing early on, too, and I was up and running with Final Cut as soon as it came out. Using my know-how, acquired since the old days of 1" analog production and Moviola film editing, I had a big advantage over my competitors. I did much better work than the inexperienced beginners who got in the game because it was so affordable to and I could directly compete with those who had $100Ks invested in equipment. Here I was finally grading high-end commercials and movies in a system that cost less than my car! I was well adapted and happy.

The lesson I learned was that, no matter how happens, one must embrace changes. Complaining will not put food on the table. New technologies are awesome. And, in the end, quality work will always prevail. Digital filmmaking is so affordable these days that lots of independent films are being released. Some of them are really bad! But, in the midst of all these, a few extraordinary talents are emerging. The digital film market is an opportunity, because even thought the tools are affordable to all, most people just don't have the talent do to certain things. Directors of Photography are doing well because most independent filmmakers can't light. Colorists are doing well because most independent filmmakers do more harm than good when they try color grading on their own. These days, offering finishing work for independent features is an interesting niche for me. The independents get financing for their features, shoot them, edit them, but the films don't look good enough to fully compete in the market. So I take their movies, refine the cuts, fix the audio (I send them to audio pros for more complex work), grade it, fix problems with invisible effects, and create a specific texture. Suddenly, their mediocre-looking film now has the same look and texture as anything on the market and we are all very happy. They can sell their film to a distributor and I make money helping them. I can deliver basically the same level of work as a high-end finish house, but I charge a lot less. The high-end houses still get the multi-million budget jobs. And I cater to this growing independent segment, as well as some of the bigger producers who hire me for my talent. Does it pay as well as it did years ago? No... and yes... (reversed on purpose). No, because independent budgets are a lot smaller. Yes, relatively, because with my experience and the new generation of extremely fast and affordable tools I can work faster than ever with lower costs. In the end, It works out well.

Sorry about this huge post, but I must add another phase, which all os us in this forum are facing - DSLRs! I am about to purchase one myself. I have been lurking here for a while studying, analyzing footage, etc. Why? because I believe that this is the next industry change. The IQ I see is the same delivered by the $$$ digital cinematography camera I was looking to buy a couple of years ago. Now I can purchase a DSLR and do a lot more shooting than with a larger camera, for the many reasons we all know. I can make my movies for a lot less money and I can, once again, replace my current gear with less expensive, higher quality equipment. Now, I am not a DP (even though I can photograph and light reasonably well), so for feature and commercial work, I'll continue to hire good DPs and camera operators. And here's where I see a huge opportunity for still photographers who see the market shrinking. Study the motion aspects of photography and enter the marked. You guys already master light and composition, so all you have to do is master motion. Believe me, lighting and composition are 90% of good footage, and what I've seen here in this great forum is some amazing footage. I can see lots of great motion picture photographers emerging from still professionals! So, embrace change and have fun.

thanks for your post, chimay!

I am new at trying to make a buck out of still/video photography... All I know is when I started (just 1-2 years ago) the average daily rate for any freelance (non-editorial/advertising) creative gig (editing, still, audio, vieo, etc.) was $1600/day or roughly 200/hr. Now, it seems like it has dwindled down to 200-300/day where people settled for that low rate, maybe a little more.

Yes, rates have gone down quite a bit in other areas, as well. Part of it has to do with the democratization of equipment, part with the lousy economy. And a portion of it has to do with the maturation process of the market. By that I mean clients learning that it takes more than equipment to make a good photo. It happened to word processing first, then music, then video and now photography. As tools become common and affordable, companies believe that they can save money by doing it all in house. First, secretaries with no graphics skills were designing print materials and then Powerpoint presentations (Ugh! PP has to be the worst example ever of gross misuse of a tool). But, with time, smarter companies either started hiring graphic artists, training their secretaries, hiring secretaries with graphics experience or, if they were smarter, hiring freelance graphic designers or the services of design companies. Because image is everything, and good graphics material do make a company stand out from the rest. In the end, there's still lots of lousy print and PP materials out there. But there's also a lot of opportunity created by the accessibility of such tools. However, one thing is for sure - we must all do a lot more than we previously did, as stated in the original post.
Photographers must become photoshop artists, film and video editors must learn the basics of compositing and sound editing, etc. Gone are the days when you did just one thing. Many specialized jobs have vanished or are on the extinction list. We must all broaden our skills. As a result, we end up entering each other's territories - which may not necessarily be a bad thing, because we can also turn this into collaboration. But we'll definitely see lots of still photographers shooting video, the same way we saw videographers shooting weddings (before, it was a still market only), etc. As long as we can adapt our skills to the market, we should be OK.

BTW, in the mid to late 80s many corporations purchased video production equipment believing that they could produce everything in-house. It was a major disaster mostly because of one simple item in the equation - they couldn't afford to pay for top talent. In the end, most in-house production departments closed their doors because they found out that, even though hiring the services of an outside production isn't cheap, it the end the cost/benefit ratio makes it a lot more advantageous than doing it in-house. Not to mention that the final quality of the material is vastly superior.

I have a friend who was a still photographer for feature films. This year, things completely changed for him because people are not hiring still photographers anymore. They have production assistants take pictures, instead (unless it is a big, union production). As a result, at least for the time being, an art is vanishing because good stills can tell the story of a movie. But I believe that this will change because good stills are a necessity. On the other hand, it is easy to grab frames from a film and turn them into stills. Even though it is not the same, part of the work is there. But part may get back to normal because we need good still work. Can't use lousy pictures for marketing purposes, for example. In the meantime, my friend must find ways to use his skills in order to survive. He is already shooting video and I'm sure he'll be blown away by what can be done with a DSLR like the 5D or the 7D. He may also take advantage of the needs of new media, such as the Internet, cell phones, etc., in order to sell or adapt his work. What he can't do is sit still (pardon the pun), because the changes are real.

As that old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times"...

Thanks for your very informative posts Chimay

I'm actually an animator myself and the 7D is the catalyst for my jump into film/photography. I'm only ever really thinking of doing it as a hobby and maybe a couple of weddings here and there but I mainly want to just tell my own stories. I love hearing industry stories, thanks

Epic post!
Great reading, Thanks Chimay!

//Mårten