Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
The Sky Is Falling . . . !

Briliant!!

Ine Photo wrote:
Thanks for reaching back out to me, however ...  I can't afford you now. Continued Success in your Career and in all of your Endeavors.
Bob

Gotcha

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
Imagine an industry changing with technology and trends. Next thing glass plates will be gone and 8x10 cameras replaced with small ones.

I think I'm using my 8x10 next week....
some things never change.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
The Sky Is Falling . . . !

Your trite comment implies that you believe there hasn't been fundamental contraction in prospects and compensation for professional photography. I'm sure there is a trite comment about that view that involves an ostrich or something.

Dan Howell wrote:

Your trite comment implies that you believe there hasn't been fundamental contraction in prospects and compensation for professional photography. I'm sure there is a trite comment about that view that involves an ostrich or something.

You don't recognize sarcasm? 

Ine Photo wrote:
Thanks for reaching back out to me, however ... With the decline of The Magazine Industry, and so many Advertisers relying on Social Media and TV, the opportunities for Product and Company subsidizing most Professional Photographers  have all but disappeared. Those facts plus the Model Mayhem outlet/forum which used to cater to the Amateur and  Photographic Arts Devotee now caters to the Hustlers, part-time Strippers and Porn Purveyors with Agents whose price structures; two and three hour minimums, booking and traveling fees and deposits and commercial platform requirements, have made it virtually impossible fo low-budget Participants ( like myself and others ) to be active Members.  What with the Major Ad Agencies disbanding, and so many outlets no longer available to/for the Pros, sadly, they have inundated and overrun The Model Mayhems of the World. I said all that to say ... luv your look and your work, but realistically, without a Sponsor, I can't afford you now. Continued Success in your Career and in all of your Endeavors.
Bob

You are ranting, am I correct?  I mean none of us actually "reached back" to you .. at least not to my knowledge.  The magazine industry has been in decline for at least a couple decades now.  Advertisers rely on Social Media because that is where the buying demographic is.  Television is not even as strong a base for advertisers unless it's a popular program combined with streaming platforms. 

There are many opportunities for photographers if you know where to search and are not against trying new things. In fact, I believe there are more opportunities than ever because the Internet is like outer space.  There can never be too much content as the latest news gets buried by what happens tomorrow.  Modelmayhem caters too whomever wants to use it for a wide range of photography related genres.  It has never been just about art. As far as "budget" well my grandfather said "don't get into photography thinking about it as a money making venture."  So if you can't pay the models (he paid Crow Indians to pose) then take pictures of mountians. 

I've never depended on "Major Ad Agencies" for work.  I did the portrait & wedding photography gig during the 1980 and 90's while also freelancing events for print media.  I worked at studios and had my own studio on occasion up until around 2004 .. I've made money with images and I paid the models.  Now I am Internet based. You mention you need a sponser, well that is a good place to start!  I'm not sure who you really directed your rant to, but no one ever succeeded by complaining or giving up.  Whatever you choose to do, I wish you success as well.   Money does not guarantee happiness.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
Imagine an industry changing with technology and trends. Next thing glass plates will be gone and 8x10 cameras replaced with small ones.

There is a young man on Facebook, and so many other social media platforms that is shooting glassplates with an 8 x 10 camera just like my grandfather used.  He is photographing mostly American Indians like my grandfather and I plan to meet him in the new year.  He is making an income from this.  I say that it is all about producing and then marketing a product that you can locate a clientele and sell to.  I don't care how many people are taking digital images with cellphones,  Art has never been meant to be easy.  I quit shooting weddings, and hopped on the Internet.  That is why I'm here on MM every so often

Patrick Walberg wrote:

You don't recognize sarcasm? 

Ok, just to make sure you that you understand sarcasm. His quote, if sarcasm, on the surface agrees with the OP, but the subtext is that the quote disagrees or belittles the position. My point is that his sarcasm implies that the points brought up in the OP are untrue when in fact those issues are true and that his position might be ignoring current and actual conditions.

Does that clear it up for you?

Dan Howell wrote:
My point is that his sarcasm implies that the points brought up in the OP are untrue when in fact those issues are true and that his position might be ignoring current and actual conditions.
Does that clear it up for you?

Are his complaints reflective of "current condition", or just "conditions"?
They are the same old gripes that people have been making here since the forums were hopping in 2009?

Things have been changing for decades, if not since the beginning of photography,
His "current trends" aren't exactly new news.

Chris Macan wrote:

Are his complaints reflective of "current condition", or just "conditions"?
They are the same old gripes that people have been making here since the forums were hopping in 2009?

Things have been changing for decades, if not since the beginning of photography,
His "current trends" aren't exactly new news.

Really? You want to go there? Ok.

So, in 2015 there was a dramatic change in magazine distribution. The result was a huge amount of magazines just flat folded. I know because I had 10 magazine clients shut their doors in 2016. Remaining magazines have half the page count and possibly fewer issues per year. The couple years leading up to that there was a lot consolidation in publishing companies which also thinned out the number titles still offered.

Much of that overall trend was due to the shifting of advertising budgets from print to web. Print impressions were usually billed to advertisers at 10x the rate that web/electronic impressions were billed. I don't know if you are still following me, but that meant that there was half or less advertising revenue coming into publications. Editorial budgets were cut first--that means less pay and fewer assignments for photographers.

Is this sounding like the same old thing to you, because I honestly and strongly don't agree. The uptick in social media, specifically in the last decade has created more and new opportunities for photographers but don't forget that 1/10th value bugaboo. Even if there was a doubling of opportunity, there is still about 1/5 of the revenue.  Also factor in the lower quality standard of social media so now even kids with cell phones are crowding the market.

Are those the complaints you were hearing in 2009?

Alexandra Vincent wrote:
What never, ever changes is people's endless ability to complain about things.

Thank you!  You summarized this entire post in a one sentence comment.   I was so confused trying to interpret what these guys are saying.  I hope we can all move on now.

Dan Howell wrote:

Really? You want to go there? Ok.

So, in 2015 there was a dramatic change in magazine distribution. The result was a huge amount of magazines just flat folded. I know because I had 10 magazine clients shut their doors in 2016. Remaining magazines have half the page count and possibly fewer issues per year. The couple years leading up to that there was a lot consolidation in publishing companies which also thinned out the number titles still offered.

Much of that overall trend was due to the shifting of advertising budgets from print to web. Print impressions were usually billed to advertisers at 10x the rate that web/electronic impressions were billed. I don't know if you are still following me, but that meant that there was half or less advertising revenue coming into publications. Editorial budgets were cut first--that means less pay and fewer assignments for photographers.

Is this sounding like the same old thing to you, because I honestly and strongly don't agree. The uptick in social media, specifically in the last decade has created more and new opportunities for photographers but don't forget that 1/10th value bugaboo. Even if there was a doubling of opportunity, there is still about 1/5 of the revenue.  Also factor in the lower quality standard of social media so now even kids with cell phones are crowding the market.

Are those the complaints you were hearing in 2009?

Did you just admit you didn't know print advertising / print media was in trouble until 2015? 
cause that seems pretty clueless.


AND YES,  The original rant could have been written in 2009.

Chris Macan wrote:
AND YES,  The original rant could have been written in 2009.

But somehow it wasn't. Go back and check. And apparently for one photographer at least it still hasn't happened.

Jefferson Cole wrote:
Yeah, not only are top magazines disappearing, and ad agencies close down in droves, and I can't even send a telegram anymore.

THAT comment was the best 😂😂🤣

But things do change. Things evolve. Society evolves. What makes money and what doesn’t changes. Business models change.

Sometimes the modality that we’re comfortable with goes the way of the dinosaur and we’re stuck staring at  our stuffed saber tooth tiger trophies mounted on the wall reminiscing about the good old days.

JSouthworth wrote:
Glamour and nude photography never have been, and never will be completely respectable, even if they are not illegal. This has some minor disadvantages but from the UK perspective I don't think it's possible to say that things are generally worse than they would have been in the 1960s or 1970s. If you look at the career of Harrison Marks, who is probably the best known British glamour photographer, he was prosecuted, he went bankrupt. He did get to photograph some amazing models, many of whom he recruited from London's strip clubs, but in order to do that, he had to live in a toilet, or in a milieu populated by evil scum, corrupt police and gangsters.

I saw a great quote, or hashtag yesterday STOP SEXUALISING NUDITY
This is so true particularly in the UK, if its an oil painting or a sculpture... that's ok but a photo...!  Showing hairy bits down there...!  That's awful its just filth... shame on you.  The Europeans both north and south have a much better appreciation of nude art, erotica and the naked form. The USA photo art market is alive and well too but the British...

Look at Sept-Nov glossy magazines, fashion, home decor etc... all alive and well and full of high end ads... its high end then a big big drop to lower budget local stuff...

Just my 2c

stevebri wrote:
I saw a great quote, or hashtag yesterday STOP SEXUALISING NUDITY
This is so true particularly in the UK, if its an oil painting or a sculpture... that's ok but a photo...!  Showing hairy bits down there...!  That's awful its just filth... shame on you.  The Europeans both north and south have a much better appreciation of nude art, erotica and the naked form. The USA photo art market is alive and well too but the British...

Look at Sept-Nov glossy magazines, fashion, home decor etc... all alive and well and full of high end ads... its high end then a big big drop to lower budget local stuff...

Just my 2c

One problem which we have in the UK is a system of public funding for the arts which, instead of providing funding for creative people, gives most of the money to local government. The effect is to subordinate photography, and the arts generally to the dead hand of local government bureaucracy, to the extent that they are dependent on public funding, which is more true of theatre than photography, but it's always useful to have more money in photography, what with the price of film these days...

"Showing hairy bits down there...!  That's awful its just filth... shame on you". You don't approve? Well too bad! Every day, I have to make creative judgements and decisions that would give you a migraine headache for 12 hours straight...I could go on. And in fact I will, but in another thread;


https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/983708

Dorola wrote:
I've be photographing strippers since the 1980s and find few problems with them. If there is one group I don't like, it is business executives. It seems corporate strategy is to marginalize the value of their employees and service providers and try to extract every bit of value from them for the least money. Give me the choice of working with a stripper or the CEO of Well Fargo and I will choose the stripper because of their higher integrity.

I saw a job advertisement recently by a clothing company which was supposedly for a photographer, but on further reading it turned out that they were looking for a photographer with fluent Chinese....or maybe a Chinese interpreter with photography skills at about half the going rate?

Al_Vee Photography wrote:
Finding models is not difficult. Many of them will even pay you to work with them.

I work with a lot of midlife women who do not fit conventional model specs, but when photographed in an attentive way, are oftentimes strikingly beautiful.

Many photographers mock the notion of photographing people who do not "look like models," but the fact is, everyone can look like a model if you actually know what you're doing and care about finding the beautiful aspects of whomever you're photographing.

The magic of photography is that I can use the light and tools to make someone look how I want them to look. This means that the ability to find models  and clients is basically limitless.

+1000

You said this so eloquently. It is so good to see you doing well! You rock!

I started modeling at 44. Over the hill... fit... but not conventionally beautiful. A few talented photographers saw things about me that I never saw in myself. I have taken that and turned it into my own production company. A production company of 1 person - lol. I've made more money each year, and now I'm 59. There's a market for women who don't look like coat hangers, but some people refuse to see it because of their own personal biases. Women of all sizes and ages are beautiful - people just have to open their eyes and step out of the dark ages.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Dan Howell is a published professional shooter with real world clients.  His comments mean something.  Years ago you could do okay assisting.  Today...  Notice how many fantastic shooters offer workshops when they didn't years past.  Anybody remember the big catalog houses in Chicago?   We had Wards, Sears and more.  All gone for years.  Pretending that things haven't changed is foolish.  I was talking with a restaurant owner who told me she didn't want to pay goofs like me when she could produce usable shots of her food and her place on Instagram with her iPhone. 

Its one thing to be a actual professional or one of our legends.  The sky may never fall for them.  Quite another for mid level shooters trying to survive.

Total sidebar here to say, "HELLO" Hi and so happy to see you visiting here.

Green Wave Photo 312 wrote:
Sorry to break it to you but there never was much of a correlation between model mayhem and professional photography. This site has always been about "model photography" featuring T&A by a bunch of photographers wondering why they can't get work shooting for Playboy and of a bunch of women wondering why they can't get signed to Ford. You know what's lacking in that equation? Clients. So the photographers and models fight over who should be paying who. Trust me, there is a whole world of professional photography out there that doesn't involve taking pictures of scantily clad hot chicks and it's doing quite well.

Ay-men!

Green Wave Photo 312 wrote:
Sorry to break it to you but there never was much of a correlation between model mayhem and professional photography. This site has always been about "model photography" featuring T&A by a bunch of photographers wondering why they can't get work shooting for Playboy and of a bunch of women wondering why they can't get signed to Ford. You know what's lacking in that equation? Clients. So the photographers and models fight over who should be paying who. Trust me, there is a whole world of professional photography out there that doesn't involve taking pictures of scantily clad hot chicks and it's doing quite well.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Ay-men!

This makes me wish MM had a like button!

Green Wave Photo 312 wrote:
Sorry to break it to you but there never was much of a correlation between model mayhem and professional photography. This site has always been about "model photography" featuring T&A by a bunch of photographers wondering why they can't get work shooting for Playboy and of a bunch of women wondering why they can't get signed to Ford. You know what's lacking in that equation? Clients. So the photographers and models fight over who should be paying who. Trust me, there is a whole world of professional photography out there that doesn't involve taking pictures of scantily clad hot chicks and it's doing quite well.

"le sigh,"

I'm definitely not in a that world. Then again, I do one hundred percent fit the bill for a MM model, wanting to get real world work but mostly looking to combine creative outlet with building a book that gets good representation while doing it after my real world daily obligations are fulfilled.

Not in the "other" whole word of professional photography that is doing quite well, yet.
Jen
edit to say: p.s. queen of run on sentences, poor grammar and typos