Skip to content

The Future of Professional Portrait Photography

Once upon a time in the not too distant future, there’s a bright-eyed, inspired entrepreneur named Debra. Debra just loves photography. She decides it’s time for her to pursue her passion and take the plunge.

D (that’s what her friends call her) decides to go down to Costco to pick up that new 50 mp “smart” camera. The images are amazing and according to the box, it can go up to ISO 8000. “Wow!” She thinks. “I don’t know what ISO is, but if it can go all the way up to 8000, it must be good). D plunks down her card and pays for the camera. Only $799 + tax.

THE SHOOT

Copyright © Teen Identity Portraits

Copyright © Teen Identity Portraits

D’s been in business for three months now and it’s going great. Today she has a teen portrait shoot. She’s scouted the perfect location: the set of railroad tracks out by her house.

D and the teen (named Samantha) have a blast. For the first 30 minutes they just hang out at the local soda shoppe chatting away. Sam thinks D is so cool. Even though she’s kinda old (shes, like, 24 or something), she doesn’t seem like it. It’s like D’s one of her best friends. As they laugh and talk fashion and boys, D grabs candid shots here and there. They then head off to the tracks.

D’s getting a bunch of great shots. She’s already up to 1,216 with plenty of room to go on her card. She wants to do a cool shoot with the background blurred out, so she tells Sam to run down the tracks a few yards. D holds up the camera and takes aim. She looks on the back of the camera then presses the menu button. She navigates to the settings and hits the digital button marked “BBB” (stands for Blurry Background Button). There’s a little pic of a woman with a blurred background to visually indicate what this feature does).

D hits the BBB button and she hears the lens and camera motor adjust focal length and aperture to give her the blurry background. (It measures the distance between the camera and the subject and the subject and the background). It’s not quite blurry enough for her. So she double-clicks the BBB button to bring up the blurriness scale. It’s set to 10. She increases to 11. (One of the reasons she got this particular camera is because BBB buttons on most other cameras only go up to 10, but this one goes up to 11.)

After increasing her BBB setting, the camera instructs her to take five steps back. She does and the camera beeps when she’s at the appropriate distance. She looks in the view finder and it looks perfect. Snap!

After the 2 hour session, D tells Sam the photos will be uploaded online by tomorrow. Sam gives her a big hug goodbye and they go their separate ways.

POST PRODUCTION

When D gets home, she hooks the camera up to her iMac G10 and launches iPhoto. The large beautiful images quickly fill up her 36″ screen. The 1,565 RAW images download in 32.3 seconds flat. Once they’re all ingested, she begins putting together her collections. She enters a set of key words: fun; movement; close ups; touching. She then enters the number 60. Using a set of advanced algorithms, iPhoto looks at collections D has created in the past, uses face recognition technology to study this new crop of images, and within a minute, it selects the top 60 photos which fits the key words she entered. She spends about 10 minutes going through those, tagging about 5 photos she really likes. She then hits the “Genius” button, and iPhoto goes through the process again, choosing a next set of 60 photos based on those five. “Perfect!” D exclaims.

DELIVERY

She types up a short caption for some of her favorites, tagging the ones she wants to put on her online accounts. She then presses the publish button. Instantly those tagged photos are uploaded to Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, ThisMoment, and her blog. The photos are automatically universally tagged with Sam’s name so her online friends will see the photos in their respective favorite social network feeds. D then presses another button to upload all 60 images to her password-protected client review site. She presses the slideshow button and the Animoto powered slideshow maker (now part of iPhoto) creates an amazing slideshow which she also automatically uploads to her online accounts.

Sam’s mom is sent an email with a link to access the password-protected sites. She approves the images, makes her payment, and they are all instantly downloaded to her copy of iPhoto. (Cloud computing image from the Infreemation blog.

Sam’s mom absolutely LOVE the photos. D has done such a fabulous job capturing the spirit of her daughter. She goes through and separates the photos into collections labeled Fun, Serious, Sophisticated, and “Daddy’’s Little Girl“. She sends the Fun collection wirelessly to all the digital 5×7s in the house. They are set to a rotation iteration of 36 hours (i.e. each photo in that set will rotate ever day and a half). She sends the Serious collection of images to the three 30×24 digital wall portrait mahogany frames with rotation iteration of 3 days.  She sends the Sophisticated set to her iPhone (no one uses paper wallets anymore), her daughter’s 36×24 in her bedroom, and the 8×10 in the master bedroom. The “Daddy’s Little Girl” set is sent via internet to her husband’s digital 5×7 on the desk in his office.

A JOB WELL DONE

D has already booked gotten an email confirming 3 more bookings made online via her ShootQ account from friends of Sam’s who saw the photos online. Life is good. A total of about 4 hours work yields another $1000. Not bad.

In the next installment, the future of event videography.

Posted in Photography. Tagged with .

By Ron Dawson
June 24, 2009

Comments

  • this is great!
  • Ok. I could see most of that coming about. Great perspective but I think we have a few years to go... Heck, I still have customers who use dial up (that is where you computer connects to the internet via a land line telephone call.)lol
  • This is a very interesting article Ron! In some ways, I think that photographers who began their careers with medium format cameras look at those that came in during the digital boom the same way we might be looking at D. There are definitely elements of this story that I hope will ring true! (Easier workflow and speedy sharing online for instance!) Thanks for getting my brain running today!
  • Yet, lowering the barrier of entry to another level. The more the merrier! This will bring a whole new meaning to professional photographer... Have to say that no matter how easy it is to enter the market, those with an eye will always rise to the top! Now...where can I get that eye? Maybe... Roots :)
  • Silly Ron ...

    The tagging will happen in camera through an interface uploaded during her first synch. She'll not have deactivated the automatic wireless Facebook uploader so when she gets back to her Mac she'll already have emails from the angry mom complaining that the images were not approved before they were published, and while she likes the way some of the shots work she doesn't understand why the backgrounds are blurry in so many so she wants a discount on the photographer's $100 four hour shoot fee and a free high res DVD slide show of her and her husband a la boudoir.

    See, no matter how good the technology gets and it will get very good, it's still a business. IMHO - of course

    the new guy
  • @j - even with an eye, if you don't have the business and marketing chops, your work may be respected, but it won't pay the bills.

    @"new guy" - too funny. BTW, it was $1,000 for 4 hours work. Not $100.
  • So there will not be a LR to iPhoto iPhone app to download RAW files and edit while you're still shooting? Bummer.
  • Why not have the number '10' blurry setting be just as blurry as number '11' ?
  • @john - but john, this camera goes up to 11. ;)
  • @ Ron Good point...maybe that is why so many people in this industry come and go! It is not as easy as it looks or is described above. brand = personality, talent = eye, success = Perseverance The industry recycles itself by 60% every 10 years!
  • The main flaw I see in this scenario is that the person you describe would never charge $1,000 for a portrait session or prints.

    The photographers who use automatic buttons ("BBB") and edit in iPhoto don't use pw-protected proofing sites and (probably) don't use ShootQ.

    They are the ones who advertise on Craigslist to shoot weddings for $500 ... or they'll shoot a portrait session for free and then sell the high-res files for $100.

    We know, of course, that once they establish themselves at this rate its hard to get yourself to $1,000.

    You mentioned business and marketing chops. I know portrait photographers that average between $1,500 and $4,000 per session. They don't make this kind of money by selling/providing clients with high-res files. As digital as our lives may become, I think there will always a place for the sales of large, well-printed, well-framed photographs.

    Sorry, but I don't see this as a likely scenario in the future (despite the obvious hyperbole).
  • Now allow me to take you back in time. In 1900 Kodak introduced the Brownie camera. It cost $1 and was "so simple to use that even the youngest children could take perfect pictures!"

    Imagine that, a child taking perfect pictures. No more wet darkrooms to haul around in the back of your custom built carriage. No more dealing with fragile, difficult to expose glass plates. You could even load it in broad daylight! How dare they introduce a camera for the masses? How on earth would professional photographers stay in business. They even sold 150,000 of them in their first year; the pros were doomed!

    If anything the "barrier to entry" has gone up, not down. A D40 is far more complicated to operate than a Brownie. If you are staying business because of some barrier preventing others from getting in, you have more serious issues.
  • Can we please stop with the absurd technology fear-mongering. The same fears are voiced every time a significant photographic advance has been introduced: roll film, hand-held cameras, portable strobes, faster film speeds, color film, auto exposure, auto focus, point and shoot cameras, digital, the "P-mode," HD video, etc. I dare you to to find actual statistical evidence that shows that a single one of these (or all of them combined) has led to a decline in the number of professional photographers. I suspect you will find the exact opposite. The more familiar people will become with photography, the more they will appreciate the masters of the craft.

    Give me a Brownie and I'll still take a better picture than Uncle Bob with his 5D MKII.
  • @erik - you're making a big assumption that D has no business or marketing savvy. Nothing in my story suggests she is the kind of person who would advertise on Craiglist. In fact, the scenario suggests the opposite. She's obviously tech savvy, creates an enjoyable experience for her clients, and knows how to use social media. Also notice there's a 3 month jump in the story from the time she buys the camera to when she starts charging.

    Second, nothing in this story suggests there still won't be photogs who can (and will) charge $1500 to $4000 for fine wall portraits. I believe that a generation is coming up where everything will be digital. You will see 30x24, very nice decor wall DIGITAL frames as described above. And the generation coming up will want those high res files. Not prints. Yes, there will still be some who want the prints, but, the digital age is alive and well, and it will be harder and harder NOT to give your clients those files.

    One last thing. You really think the barrier to entry has gone UP. Come on my friend. You think it's harder to get into professional photography now than it was, say, 20 years ago. Everything says the opposite. The ease of use of today's cameras, the lower prices, the proliferation of sites like Flickr, have significantly decreased the barriers to entry.

    I don't think this scenario is hyperbole at all. But, as is always the case in situations like this, only time will tell.
  • @dave - I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "stop with the technology fear mongering" or infer a decline in the number of photographers. If anything, my illustration suggests an INCREASE in the number of photographers.

    Second, who's doing fear mongering. I'm painting a picture of what I believe a large part of the future of portraiture will look like. I DO think it will be more and more difficult to withhold those high res files. I think there WILL be 30x24 and larger digital frames (heck, we used our 37" HD TV as a digital "frame". We just ran a screen saver program via apple TV. Was just like having a big ol' digital frame on the wall).

    Lastly, just because you can take a better picture with a brownie vs. a 5dMII, don't mean you'll be better in business. There are starving artists all over this country (in both photography and videography) who do stunning work but who either go out of business, or never excel and stay in their "safe" 9to5 b/c making as an entrepreneur takes way more than just taking great photos.

    The whole point of my story is to paint a picture of what the industry will look like so that you can ask yourself, "Assuming I'm still around and in business when this occurs, will my business strategy be able to keep up. If the vast majority of portrait clients DO end up wanting/demanding high res photos, if I want to continue withholding them, how will I reach those clients willing not to take them. Or, how will I price my service so it won't matter if I do give them up.

    I'm not trying to scare you. I'm trying to get us to think about tomorrow. And the day after.
  • Wow! Sarcastic, bittersweet, and plain scary!!! We're all grateful for technology and it's time & money-saving perks, but how far is too far? We already live in a world where a plain red square or pencil shavings are framed and admired with sophistication in museums. Anybody could be a somebody. Yet I refuse to think ANYBODY could be a photographer... Thank you, awesome post!
  • I had totally forgotten about this post when I wrote this article, but read this blog post on Me Ra Koh's blog about the new Sony Alpha's. Click here.
  • @Ron

    You absolutely suggested that D is either a "pro-sumer" or the type of photographer who would undercut prices and/or advertise on Craigslist ... it's implied by the fact that she purchases an $800 costco camera (I'll assume with a kit lens since you didn't specify), shoots with automatic settings (BBB), knows nothing about ISO, and edits her images using consumer software.

    Because she has no fixed costs (studio rent, employees) and minimal other costs (little printing, not buying pro software), you're not portraying her as someone who is serious about pursuing photography as a business.

    Before you say it, yes, you can take a nice picture with a $800 DSLR ... and iPhoto can create some nice effects. But you have to admit that almost all full-time, working professional photographers don't use those tools. Plus, I'm not sure how you can prove that we are on a trajectory where that will change in the future.

    A Wal-Mart hammer can drive a nail just fine, but I doubt you will find them in use at many construction sites. I don't see that changing in the future.

    Yes, large digital frames will be commonplace someday. And, yes, more and more customers will demand digital files (although it's debatable that an HD-sized image is truly high-res) and some photographers will need to adapt.

    I never said the barrier to entry has gone up. It hasn't.

    If she's been in business for 3 months and things are going great–making $1k per session–she would have invested in better tools and more education (learn to shoot in manual for goodness sake).

    I simply think you've painted a picture of someone who will NEVER exist.
  • Once upon a time in the not too distant future PLUS ONE DAY...Samantha decides that she too wants to be a photographer. Being someone who can stay one step ahead of the curve, D sells Sam a one hour "stoked / amped / rockstar" consultation for $1,500 so she makes the same amount with much less effort. She replicates all of the exact steps that D took. The four friends who booked D asked for their money back...and they have Sam take the shots. (Sorry...couldn't resist... :P )
  • @erik - nothing in this post suggests D doesn't take her photography seriously or is/will not invest more in her business. Or that she isn't actively involved in educating herself. All I suggested that despite NOT have a full education, she's able to make a viable business now.

    She gets the $800 camera because in this future, it's as powerful as today's $2600 camera and that's what she can afford. She's using iPhoto because in this future, iPhoto is as powerful as Aperature or Lightroom today. And they ARE going there. (iPhoto already has face recognition software. And have you seen iMovie lately. Wow!)

    Look at Jasmine Star. Three or some odd years ago she admittedly knew nothing about photography. Now she sells out $750 workshops in less than an hour. Yes, she is an exception... now. I think the future will be filled with more and more J*s. That is, brand savvy, sharp marketers in tune with their clients, willing to learn the craft, but aren't going to wait for a Hallmark or Brooks equivalent education to start their business.

    As far as shooting in manual mode. Again, part of my point is that technology is taking us to a place where manual mode may very well be a thing of the past. I know that may sound blasphemous (I am a manual mode shooter, so I get where you're coming from), but I do see that day coming.
  • Wow, this is a huge can of worms. With new technology, there is always a flood of wide-eyed entrepreneurs who are looking to make a buck. Heck, I was one of those people 10 years ago that thought that Photoshop was magic. Then I learned that there is so much more to taking pictures than just knowing how to operate a camera, just like there is more to carpentry than owning a hammer. It is an interesting take on where things are heading and I think to stay afloat, business owners should brush up on those business fundamentals that seem to stick around. As mom would say, there will always be someone cooler, smarter, and better looking.
  • @jessica - I like your mom! :)
  • @Ron: who said anything about withholding digital files? I've been including those since I switched to digital in 2004. And before that, when I shot film, I included the negatives. Its only benefitted my bottom line. Sure, if you get ignore market trends and demands you'll get left behind (it doesn't take an MBA to figure that out).

    Yes, there will always be starving artists. There will always be people who care more about creating images with soul than paying rent. That is true today, it was true when Caravaggio was painting, and it will be true when "D" is around.

    As you point out, taking better pictures won't guarantee anyone staying in business, but I also will have years of business experience should Uncle Bob, or D choose to compete with me. I will have a network they don't have, experience they have yet to acquire (there is NO shortcut, or technology for that), and more money to invest in my business then they do (usually). As a result I'm glad to help them out - they pose no threat whatsoever to me.

    My point is that your "picture of tomorrow" is no different than today, or 100 years ago. Little has changed. In essence you are only saying: "in order to be successful as a photographer, you will need to know business, marketing, and interpersonal skills, you can't rely on technology." That has ALWAYS been the case. It's not exactly an original insight.
  • @david and erik - first my apologies to you both, I got your replies switched. ERIK was the one talking about photogs making 1500 to $4000 by not giving the high res images. And DAVID was the one who said barriers to entry have gone up. My "withholding digital negs" comment should've been directed to Erik.

    So, David, I throw this comment back to you. How can you honestly say barriers to entry have gone up. Today it's easier than ever for anyone with a decent camera to hang a shingle and start a photo business.

    Regarding your latest reply, we're in total agreement. Your last paragraph is dead on. You get the point perfectly. But here's a question, why do you think if this is such an obvious point, it's sparked such a visceral response from folks, including yourself. ;) I find it interesting that a lot of people have read things into the story I never said. Assuming D is not serious about photography. Or that she isn't educating herself. I also find interesting the level of defensiveness with respect to D and those like her. Nothing in this story suggests she's doing any better or worse than those of you who have the more expensive equipment, the "real" software, or the training. Just a curious observation.

    And for the record, I never said this was an original thought. :)
  • @Ron

    Sorry, I'm just not buying it. Consumer cameras and consumer software does advance–but professional gear doesn't just sit still.

    And I wasn't referring to formal education–I was referring to technical skill knowledge of photographic principles. There are plenty of ways to get that knowledge ... but If you need a BBB or a Genius button to get the desired results–without actually knowing the principles behind it–sorry, but you're not learning.
  • @erik - One question. What exactly are you not buying? That D exists (or will). I know for a fact she (and photogs like her) already do.

    You're right, pro gear just doesn't sit still either. But my point is all about the business of photography, and how it will look in the future. It's in many ways just a fun exercise. But, it suggests a radically different workflow than many do now. It suggests that just because you may have the pro gear, you're going to be competing with people with consumer gear and probably making as much as you.

    There was once a time when you HAD to use a light meter to ensure the proper exposure. There was once a time when you HAD to manually focus. There was once a time when you HAD to do other things that cameras can now do for you automatically. Yet people are still learning. Just because D uses the BBB button doesn't mean she won't (or isn't) learning the basics behind it. Maybe she goes to workshops in her local area. Maybe she's taking a night course. Maybe she went to the 10th annual Skip's Summer School. ;) My post doesn't say one way or the other. My main point in describing those features was just to point out that like focus and light metering, many things you NEED to know how to do manually today, you won't HAVE to do in the future. And understanding WHY they work won't at all be necessary for having a successful BUSINESS.

    Now, if you want to discuss art and the virtues of understanding the photographic principals, that's a different (and worthwhile) conversation.

    One last trivial clarification. The Genius button will help photogs sort through 1500+ images to arrive at a desired collection, rather than having to look at them all...manually.

    Speaking of Skip's Summer School, will you be there (since you guys made his cool site). I'd love to continue are "debate" over a cup of java. :)
  • The ONLY difference between an amateur photographer and a pro photographer, is the pro makes his living as a photographer. As technology advances and things become easier, it will make it easier for those with a good eye, but without a lot of technical education to make a living as a photographer. Those with good marketing and business skills, who are a real "people" person will be able to make their livings as photographers, and join the rank of the pro photographers.

    I began in the days of film. All my weddings were shot with a Mamiya RB67. It was big, heavy, akward, had no meter, no program function. It was completely manual! It took a technical knack to be a good photographer back then. When AF came out, the old timer boohood it as a gimick, and no real pro would use it, then the same when digital came out. As technology continually advances, the photographer is less of a scientist, and more of an artist/business expert.

    Like many of you, I love the smell of fixer on my hands, I love tri-x film, I love 6x7 velvia transparencies on a light table, but I don't get to use them on weddings anymore. I have to work harder at marketing and business than I ever did before. I have new equipment, new computer programs, and new skills I have had to learn to be able to compete. I will make whatever changes I need to make to be able to continue to be a photographer, because I have the one thing which seperates a true photographer from those who just take pictures. I have a passion for photography. That cannot be learned, bought, or taught at a workshop. It comes from within, and if you have it, you will do whatever it takes to follow that passion. And that is what makes a true photographer.
  • Great, thought-provoking article Ron.

    I'm going to hang back until 'they' release a camera that goes up to a blurry setting of 12. Imagine that!
  • If she already exists, then this post isn't the "future" of portrait photography–it's the present :)

    What I'm not buying is that D has a) only 3 months experience, b) only consumer gear, c) a lot of technical naivete–but is earning 4-figures on portrait sessions. Maybe some exist, but I think they're the exception, not the rule (and that will continue in the future).

    Yep, I'll be in vegas all by myself :) ... let's definitely get together–coffee or dinner is on me.
  • Ron, The visceral reaction comes from post likes this (that pop up every few months) "warning" of some weird vision of the future, or how some particular technology is going to change everything, and people have been saying the exact same things for 100 years, and it just gets old. You know?

    As for the barriers to entry being higher, I speak only of photography gear (because I'm not up to speed on the video end of things), but my comment is based on the fact that today it costs over twice as much to buy the equivalent level of photo gear than it did 15 years ago. Additionally, the technology is getting outdated at a much faster paces so your continual equipment expenditure is also significantly more. 20 years ago a photographer could use a camera body for 10-15 years. Today, there is no way I could use a 10 year old camera body. Check out my reply on the Pictage forums if you want to see the specific numbers.
  • @erik - touche. The earning a $1000 per session after 3 months is kinda aggressive. I'll give you that. The "future" title is more about the equipment and the workflow than about D. And I don't drink coffee (excluding frappacinos), so feel free to treat me to dinner. ;)

    @david - so, according to you, they're doing things the same now as they did 100 years ago?

    FWIW, there is no warning in my post. There is no indication in my story that you better beware. If you got that sense, you're reading into it. And frankly, I hardly think the picture I'm painting is "weird." And you know what, technology DOES change how we do things. The way photographers shoot, edit, and market their business has drastically changed because of technology. I'm surprised anyone would suggest otherwise.

    And I gotta admit that I find your statement rather hard to believe that equipment is twice as much today as it was 15 years ago. In every other aspect of technology it's the other way around. Technological advancements make it cheaper to do the same things you could do 15 years ago. Based on what you're saying, there should be fewer and fewer people getting into the photo business. I'm not seeing that at all.
  • Carl
    "The 1,565 RAW images download in 32.3 seconds flat. "

    I love the future already! I can't wait 'til it gets here!
  • KlicK
    Ok here goes.
    I can PERSONALLY see through the eyes of 'D'. Why? I wasn't that much different not so long ago.
    To be honest, I've been VERY ashamed to reveal (here) what my equipment choices are simply because you guys are photographers. I've created a rather wonderful portfolio in under 5 years and I just learned about exposure and aperture about a year ago. I shot my first wedding in Manual mode last July however I've been doing weddings since 2005. I used to rely on just simply 'seeing' the photos then releasing the shutter. I didn't realize there was so much to technically learn about the craft.
    I've recently bought an 'entry level' DSLR and public confidence is an issue. I walked into a wedding last December and the video guy instantly started yapping about 'those point and shoots' then he whipped out his massive 40D with pro flash and big lens attached.
    I have noticed though, that people often compliment my work locally even after looking at others' work who may have 15 + years experience and use SLRs et al. NOW I know that the equipment doesn't matter however think about this.
    The reason I bought an entry level DSLR is because it's what I could afford. I've researched photography enough to know what I can do. I'll post pix of my equipment and reveal a few things that I doubt anyone else may be doing. Lack of high end equipment really squeezes creativity out of you.

    I love 'D' and people like her because I'm not that much different. If people join photography because of a craze or for technology, I just start the timer and move on... THEY NEVER LAST. I'll be in photography for a long time because of passion, commitment and love for the art.
  • @KlickK

    Thanks for the sharing the info ...

    What I'd like to know is this (if you're willing to share): what were you charging for weddings when you started? 6 moths later? 2 years later? Now?

    Keep it up ...
  • @klick - Love this comment. I commend you for making it. I know it must be a hard thing to admit. Bravo for you. I think there are more of you out there than you think, but are afraid they'll get eaten alive. It's okay to be in your position. As you so notably pointed out, it's the talent that counts. Even Dave Wittig admitted that given him brownie and he'll take a better photo than a novice with a 5D. As you've said, it's the passion and commitment.

    Thanks so much for sharing and keep up the great work.

    @carl - FINALLY. Someone who recognizes that this is a bright future indeed. :)
  • Indeed it's the passion and the commitment and I think this part is fairly relevant for her success: "For the first 30 minutes they just hang out at the local soda shoppe chatting away....."

    Yes, I think it's great that technology advances!

    Thanks for this article, Ron!
  • Dave
    OK so D got paid £1000 bucks .... whoopdee doo! by that time I'll be getting 100,000 and laughing at how crap her pictures are because I am an ARTIST ! ;-)
blog comments powered by Disqus