Photographer: Best Get Rich Fast Job?

markschultz25 wrote:

He could theoretically shoot 7 a week with ease. His job doesn't confine him to one location. That's the beauty of photography. you can travel where the money is and get your name out on a regional level.

The overhead of setting up the shoot is virtually non-existent with today's camera technology. No expensive lighting needed.

Traveling costs money. No one is going to hire me to do their wedding in far away cities because as noted, there's a lot of competition in today's market. There's no point in hiring a photographer from far away to do your wedding who is going to charge extra for travel when there's lots of local talent.

As for your lighting comment, you really don't have a clue. Lighting is on of the crucial differences between hiring a pro and getting a friend to spray and pray with a $2000 slr equipped with crappy distortion-plagued slow huge zoom-range variable-aperture kit lenses.

I actually understand lighting and stuff like that pretty well. I attended Georgia Tech and got A's in Physics 1, and in Physics 2, which covers electromagnetism and light waves and stuff like that.

markschultz25 wrote:

He does mor than just weddings:

1) Senior pictures

2) family/group portraits

3)drone pictures

4)videography

You keep mentioning this, but I can't imagine that that many people want pictures of drones.

By drone, I meant aerial photography.

He has a drone that he uses to take pictures for real estate clients and other similar people.

Second that statement. Furthermore, lighting is important because without a mastery of lighting and the ability to apply lighting, your client's wedding photo book will contain a hodge-podge of photos with exposure all over the map which is unpleasant to view. You can have a few different lighting situations in a wedding book, a certain tone for the ceremony, a different tone for the shots outside after the ceremony or in a different area of an outside wedding, but you don't want shots in the same location coming out differently because of haphazard exposures. You can adjust exposure in post-production but that will introduce subtle differences that are noticeable in the final collection.

markschultz25 wrote:

I actually understand lighting and stuff like that pretty well. I attended Georgia Tech and got A's in Physics 1, and in Physics 2, which covers electromagnetism and light waves and stuff like that.

This is like saying I'd be a good MMA fighter because I've taken anatomy and have covered topics like sliding filament theory, which helped me understand muscle contraction.

easy weeks wrote:

markschultz25 wrote:

I actually understand lighting and stuff like that pretty well. I attended Georgia Tech and got A's in Physics 1, and in Physics 2, which covers electromagnetism and light waves and stuff like that.

This is like saying I'd be a good MMA fighter because I've taken anatomy and have covered topics like sliding filament theory, which helped me understand muscle contraction.

Or perhaps your snarky comment was because you were not smart enough to get into a school like Tech.

markschultz25 wrote:

By drone, I meant aerial photography.

He has a drone that he uses to take pictures for real estate clients and other similar people.

Most real estate companies want interior shots, for which you will need a really good wide angle lens free of rectilinear distortion. Such a lens will cost $1,000 - $5,000 depending on what you get. Real estate companies tend to be cheap when it comes to paying for photographers, unless you have a good relationship with someone who values your work.

Not trying to dissuade you from becoming a photographer. It sounds like you really want to try it. But the title of your post includes "Best Get Rich Fast Jobs?" and I think it is safe to say that any photographer, even the ones earning millions per year, will tell you it wasn't fast or easy to get where they are. You will end up pouring yourself into the profession.

markschultz25 wrote:

Or perhaps your snarky comment was because you were not smart enough to get into a school like Tech.

No, I was just being snarky. However, you've made it clear that being given the goods on why your point of view was incorrect hurts your feelings, so now you're lashing out in a comical manner. And yes, it is comical that you hang on to your being a Georgia Tech student as a means of some sort of definition of self-worth/importance, loudly proclaiming it as if it was some sort of intimidating revelation to all that oppose you.

markschultz25 wrote:

easy weeks wrote:

This is like saying I'd be a good MMA fighter because I've taken anatomy and have covered topics like sliding filament theory, which helped me understand muscle contraction.

Or perhaps your snarky comment was because you were not smart enough to get into a school like Tech.

Now see Mark, it is comments like that which give tech types a bad reputation. Myself and whoever the other fellow is, have been giving you solid advice based on actual experience. His analogy is totally accurate, it wasn't snarky. He wasn't saying you can't become a good photographer, he was correctly pointing out that understanding the physics of light won't by itself make you good with lighting. If your skin is so thin that is a bad sign for getting into photography. Successful photographers have great people and "soft" skills. Clients say the nastiest and most insulting things to photographers, and you have to grin and bare it.

Wide angle for interiors wrote:

Most real estate companies want interior shots, for which you will need a really good wide angle lens free of rectilinear distortion. Such a lens will cost $1,000 - $5,000 depending on what you get.

Standard pro grade 77mm wide angle lenses actually start at about $2000+ now, and go up from there. Here's mine, which is nothing special. It's a basic lens that any pro would have.

easy weeks wrote:

Wide angle for interiors wrote:

Most real estate companies want interior shots, for which you will need a really good wide angle lens free of rectilinear distortion. Such a lens will cost $1,000 - $5,000 depending on what you get.

Standard pro grade 77mm wide angle lenses actually start at about $2000+ now, and go up from there. Here's mine, which is nothing special. It's a basic lens that any pro would have.

https://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLenses/233581/nikon-afs-1424mm-f28-g-ed-nikkor-wide-angle-zoom-lens.aspx

You can get a used Tokina in good condition for around $1,000. 77mm? I'm thinking more like 12mm - 18mm.

Used Tokinas work fine wrote:

You can get a used Tokina in good condition for around $1,000. 77mm? I'm thinking more like 12mm - 18mm.

I don't like Tokinas. Vignetting and barrel distortion in their high-end wide angles are all worse than what I'm comfortable with. They don't snap to focus very quickly, either.

You are confusing focal length with thread size. 77mm refers to the size of the front lens element, which is what the vast majority of pro slr lenses are regardless of focal length (except for some cheap primes).

easy weeks wrote:

Used Tokinas work fine wrote:

You can get a used Tokina in good condition for around $1,000. 77mm? I'm thinking more like 12mm - 18mm.

I don't like Tokinas. Vignetting and barrel distortion in their high-end wide angles are all worse than what I'm comfortable with. They don't snap to focus very quickly, either.

You are confusing focal length with thread size. 77mm refers to the size of the front lens element, which is what the vast majority of pro slr lenses are regardless of focal length (except for some cheap primes).

You rely on auto focus for architectural work? I haven't experienced the distortion you refer to. When I said 12mm - 18mm I was referring to fixed length lenses in that range. I don't bother with thread size, if the lens is good it is good. The Nikon 85mm 1.8G has a 67mm thread size and is outstanding for portraiture. Depends on the type of work you are doing. Honestly, your statement comes off as bragging about penis size.

I checked iStock and they pay $20.

easy weeks wrote:

Used Tokinas work fine wrote:

You can get a used Tokina in good condition for around $1,000. 77mm? I'm thinking more like 12mm - 18mm.

I don't like Tokinas. Vignetting and barrel distortion in their high-end wide angles are all worse than what I'm comfortable with. They don't snap to focus very quickly, either.

You are confusing focal length with thread size. 77mm refers to the size of the front lens element, which is what the vast majority of pro slr lenses are regardless of focal length (except for some cheap primes).

And while we're at it, the Nikon 50mm 1.8D prime (fixed length) lens, with a miniscule 52mm thread diameter, deserves a mention. At around $130 it is the best deal in photography. Super sharp, buttery bokeh, with a wide range of applications. I would recommend this lens to Mark or anyone new to photography. Shooting with a prime lens stretches your mind (and legs) forcing you to think about perspective, stance, working with natural light. Some of the all time greats shot solely with a 50mm prime.

The OP knows nothing about professional photography, and there's certainly no bigger cluster-&@ck than wedding photography. Everyone with an iphone thinks they are photographers, and have zero idea of what quality photography looks like. Making a decent living at all, let alone easy good money, is so far from the reality it's not even funny.

Most "professional" wedding photographers are a scam. They are the equivalent of a 21 minute 5k runner, IE: "fast" in the layman world according tof couch to 5k Schlubs but in reality we all know they suck.

Due to the internet web, and social media, pay for photography is exploding out of this Earth. Now is the time to purchase Canon, Sony, and Nikon DSLRs and make a huge career out of your passion.