Coming back home on a flight last night and I spotted an article in the in-flight magazine about a guy called Steve Bloom who is a nature photographer responsible for some absolutely stunning photos from around the world which are due to be published in his book 'untamed' next month - some can be seen at http://www.untamed.com

Now the thing is, how does somebody go about taking photography to this level from the very bottom of the ladder. It seems to me this guy has the perfect job, travelling the world, seeing amazing sights, snapping them and getting paid for the end result.

Certainly appeals to me, just wondered how easy it is to get into.

David

these are some of my shots of my car

http://www.envy-uk.co.uk/showthread.php?t=253

SHES MA BABY

Now the thing is, how does somebody go about taking photography to this level from the very bottom of the ladder.

David
start by doing a collage course in photography i would say.

Heard it costs quite a bit thou, as ya need a good camera, and then films, filters etc

David,

Usual thing is to simply start at the bottom. go take pictures. Get them submitted to magazines. If you are any good they may commission you to produce more. Same with photo libraries.

Eventually you get to the point where magazines etc. are paying for your trips to shoot specific stuff.

Easy eh ? ;)

Cheers

Ian

Practice, practice, practice and in wildlife photography an extensive knowledge of your subject and patience - oh, and luck

College courses are where most pros start, but in professional photography it's your ability with the camera and who you know that count ... you can have certificates coming out of your @r$e but if your portfolio is cr@p then you'll get now-where.

I started straight from school on the local paper making cups of tea on work experience, then doing the odd assignment for nothing (cos no-one else wanted to do the assignment), and then working as a freelance (working nights and weekends) while I was in college. It took a year before they offered me a job as a trainee - it's at that point you're in. Did 7 years on the paper, then moved to the agency where I've been for nearly 10 years.

Wildlife photography is probably the most difficult to become successful at - wildlife photographers need more knowledge of their subject (the animals) than they do about photography. Any reasonable photographer, whether amateur or pro, with the right gear (costing in the region of £6000 for one lens) could get great pictures on a safari, but to get stunning pictures like Steve Bloom's of nature in the raw would be a dream.

In the introduction it says "For more than ten years, photographer Steve Bloom travelled all over the world, roaming
through the jungles of Borneo, the African savannahs, and the frozen banks of Antarctica
to assemble this dazzling collection of photographs of animals in their environments."

The two hundred pictures represent a fraction of the thousands taken.

Photography is a fantastic career, but it ain't easy, and to get anywhere in the career takes a long time and a lot of hard work, and the glamourous side that people see doesn't tell the whole story.

However, if you have the eye for a photograph, know your subject and prepared to work hard there's no reason why you shouldn't make a career from it - plenty do, but only a few get to the very top.

I looked into this quite seriously last year when I was getting fed up with my engineering job and looking for a way out. (Any way out, in fact!).

I came to the conclusion that the ability to take a good photo was the easy bit. The hard work would be in making a business out of it - setting up, advertising, accounting, travelling and organisation... taking pictures would be a minor part of the job and likely to be a boring bit too.

I wanted to get into motorsport photography, so as a little project for myself I went to Trax last year and tried to get a photo of every Subaru as it went round the track. It was boring, I got accused of unauthorised commercial posts by Scoobynet's own webmaster just for trying to find out if there was a market for my work, and I ended up selling just one image. Starting out is, I discovered, very hard indeed - unless you're able to say to yourself, your bank manager, insurers, potential advertising hosts and customers, 'I am a professional photographer', you'll get nowhere. I wanted to start out doing it as a sideline, but it seems the world isn't geared up for (legally, at least) making a few quid on the side. Everyone wants a slice of your hard-earned even before you've earned anything at all.

Suffice to say that I said 'sod this' and found a better job - in engineering. I take photos for the SIDC magazine True Grip, I enter competitions and I take lots of pics just for fun, but if the bottom drops out of the satellite communications industry where I work, I doubt very much that my next job will be in photography.

Sorry to p*ss on your chips, but if you still want to go for it now, you may well be one of the few with the dedication to make it. The very best of luck to you :D

A friend of a friend does this, but only as a part-time job.

Steffen Gorgas Photography (http://www.steffengorgas.com/photography/)

I know another lad that has a sideline in Glamour photography. Wouldn't mind doing that for a living :)

Stefan

Thanks for the information, some good honest and realistic views on the subject which is what I was looking for. Up until now my experience has literally been limited to quick snaps on my compact digital camera and my olympus muII 170 zoom 35mm camera. As a base for getting started what sort of camera would you suggest for a beginner to start taking some more 'creative' shots?

Thanks again :)

David

For getting started there's absolutely nothing better than a digital SLR. It'll give you enormous creative flexibility and, of course, instant feedback and the ability to experiment without using up expensive film.

The best thing it'll do for you is give you manual control over aperture and shutter speed, which will help you get to grips very quickly with the effect each has in isolation. The trouble with automatic cameras - especially film cameras, where the processing lab makes decisions for you - is that it's difficult or impossible to predict or control the outcome of a given shot. Once you understand the process better, you'll never use a full-auto mode again.

My first 'proper' camera was a Canon D30, and you should be able to get one of these exceptionally capable cameras from eBay for the price of a very mediocre compact digi. You'll want a lens or two too - a range from, say, 28 to 200mm will do to start off. Most important, though, is that you find a camera that feels comfortable in your hands and that you'll enjoy using, and that's a topic of endless debate - a search will reveal all sorts of opinions.

Andy has raised some interesting points, and he's probably better to advise on the equipment side.

To follow on...there are two was to look at being a professional photographer, you can be employed by someone to take photographs (such as a newspaper or agency photographer for example, as I am), or you can take photographs which you then hope to sell.

The advantage for me is that I recieve a salary, but will never earn really "big bucks" for my pictures because the company recieves the payment.

If you go down the line of taking pictures to sell, then the rewards can be higher per picture, but there's no security of income, it can take along time to make your mark, plus a difficulty in selling the photographs, as Andy mentioned.

You also have to take pictures that people (either individuals/picture libraries) want to buy - it sounds obvious, but its not just a case of taking a photograph that you like and hoping to sell it. You have to look at it from a financial perspective as well as an artistic one.

You need to decide who your photographs are aimed at/appeal to. Magazines, picture libraries, individuals etc, and market them appropriately - and it goes without saying the quality of the photographs, of any subject, has to be top notch.

There are a number of keen amateur photographers who supply pictures to various libraries who will market the photographs for them, and take a percentage. If you have a lot of marketable images, this can provide a nice income, but also opens up a whole can of worms as regards tax implications, copyright, payment and also the possibility of being ripped off !!!

Specialist magazines will often have a number of regular contributors, and if you have other interest (trains, sailing, horse riding, caravaning - the list is endless) then photographs that you take relating to that are often of interest to smaller publications.

The first batch of photographs I ever sold was from a fencing competition in Cardiff. I went to get some experience of photographing indoor sport, was the only photographer there, got talking a guy who edited a specialist fencing magazine, and agreed to supply him with a set of pictures. Two weeks later, a front cover picture, two pages of pictures inside, and a cheque for £200...I was only 17.....LUCK again !!! That magazine provided a valuable addition to my portfolio - I'd already had work published when I went to the local paper.

It's not something that happens to wake up one morning and decide to be a photographer - you have to be determined and throw everything at it, including a lot of cash. I suspect I've spent somewhere in the region of £50,000 over the last 20 odd years or so on equipment (specially lenses for sport), so it aint cheap !!!

The sad thing is, I've spent a good chunk of that in just the last three years... and made about £20 back out of it! It's been a lot of fun, though :)

I know what you mean Andy, that £50,000 was on top of the film camera equipment I got from the newspaper back in the 90's, and not including the the digital kit supplied by my current employer ! :(

Ow...

I have a small side line business doing equine photograph. I would suggest finding some kind of outlet for your work and practice a lot, this way you get to earn money on the side doing photography and dont have to launch in to it 100%. If you find the right outlet you will quickly get noticed for what you are doing if you are any good!
Here are some examples of todays horse show:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/rosswalker/IMG_0301.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/rosswalker/IMG_1096.jpg
Slowly I am getting asked to do more photography, but im not banking on retiring on the proceeds too soon!
Cheers,
Ross

This is why I couldn't do photography as a job. I simply take photos that I like.

If I had to do it for a job, taking pictures of subjects I'm not interested in, I'm sure the shine would soon disappear. :)

Yes, also holds his hands up and admits to spending deep into four figures these past few years (all this digital stuff adds up) with almost nil return. :D

Cheers

Ian

This is why I couldn't do photography as a job. I simply take photos that I like.

If I had to do it for a job, taking pictures of subjects I'm not interested in, I'm sure the shine would soon disappear. :)

Ian's quite right, I take very few photographs outside work...last thing I want to do is to lug a stack of gear around on a day off, except when it comes to pictures for close friends, or pics of my nephew and neice.

You do become mercenary about it eventually, which destroys it as a hobby

(all this digital stuff adds up) with almost nil return. :D


Theres no disputing that it is expensive to set up. One of the major downsides to digital is that to get the right quality you need the best glass available, Consumer lenses simply wont do. Personally I use canon. I have 4 main lenses 85mm F1.2, 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F4, 100-400mm F4-5.6.
All these lenses together would cost new around £4500 which isn't too bad, for such a wide variety. There isn't much sports wise I dont have scope for.
The other up side is that they hold the value like nothing else I know. Buy second hand/sell secondhand then you wont lose too much!
Good luck

Buy second hand and you do, however, run the risk that you'll be sending kit away for repair just to get it working, which wipes out any saving. I'll never buy a s/h lens again.

From other photgraphy forums, one of the best bits of advice seems to be to spend some time with a professional photographer, and see how they do it.

Courses are all very well, but learning from someone who does it for a living makes a lot of sense.

If you googleit, there are several well known pros who offer this if you do not know any pro photographers, of simply don't have time to spend with them because of your current job. Some of them off residency course of a few days.

Geezer

Great thread !!

Another top wildlife photographer is Andy Rouse (http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/)

Like most wildlife photographers, he travels the world taking pics in the most extreme situations but he also teaches courses, leads expeditions, writes books, writes Columns (in Practical Photography).

Even as a lop level Pro, he relies on this work to keep him in lenses and paying his travel costs, boarding, food, guides etc. Its not ALL about taking pictures.

I’ll copy and e-mail you some of his articles in Practical Photography if you want. Some of Andy’s articles are good reads, and some of the things he has to do to get the pictures are mental. i.e waiting weeks sitting in a tent, unable to leave as his subject will freak and fly away if he moves, Good stuff.

Darren

Andy,

If you first camera was a D30 which is what, 2/3 years old. You have not been taking pictures long and you standard is alreay very high.

Have you submitted any pictures to a photo library? If not, have you considered it.

Darren

My cousin does photography.
Works for himself.

Check out the link below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/essex/features/ben_rector/ben_rector.shtml

David, listen to Andy. The photography is the easy bit. Getting work, and being paid for it, is the hard part. I tried, failed, disillusioned. I wanted to take pictures, but that's not what it's about.

Many years ago, fresh out of college, I worked as assistant to a London advertising photographer. He was good and had an impressive portfolio of top ad agency clients. But he spent most of his time touting for work, even more time trying to get paid, and the rest of the time he was dodging the bank manager and landlord of his posh Kensington studio. I did most the 'real' photography (90% was a piece of pi55) and he just came over and pressed the tit.

Photography looks like a glamorous profession and appears easy. It's a bit like Pop Idol, attracts lots of hopefuls but the success rate is probably about the same. Pros are also up against an army of very good amateurs who take pictures for personal pleasure and sell them to specialist magazines mainly for ego (nothing wrong with that) and beer money. It's a tough gig, mate.

Good luck,

Richard.

PS Join the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, email mail@thebfp.com

Thanks Darren :D It's about 3 yrs since I got my D30 and for the next two years I struggled to pass up any chance of acquiring new camera toys. I grew from having a camera bag to having a rucksack, then I brought the bag back into service as well, and now have half a cupboard full of stuff! My work is quite unapologetically equipment-centred; I doubt I could take any of the pics I've posted in the last year using a pocket camera. I'm just too attached to my long lenses and off-camera flashes.

I have considered submitting photos to a library, but in the end didn't bother for some of the reasons I hinted at above:

- making a few quid on the side can be a can of worms with regard to insurance, tax and other potential liabilities. For the amount I'd expect to make, I can do without the hassle.

- stock libraries have some strange and outdated rules about the file sizes they'll accept. They want huge files (basically hi-res film scans) and don't really understand about the relatively small files that come from a DSLR. For both quality and economy, they should be doing the resizing for print, yet they expect photographers to up-res images using expensive software before submission. I don't have or need such software and I'm not prepared to pay for it either.

- It's all just a bit of fun, at the end of the day. I just don't want to give up the free time - at least not yet.