Going pro on the cheap

[southwestsam]

Just thinking today about whether it would be possible to (or whether anyone has ever) gone "pro" on the cheap. By pro, I mean earning enough (and making enough profit) to make a living.

Have you? or do you know anyone that has?

Then it got me thinking of a challenge - you want to start a photography business but you only have £5,000 ($7,000US / €7,000) to spend.

You can buy whatever you want - but cant spend more than £1,500 ($2,000US / €2,000) on the body or more than £800 ($1,000 / €1,000) on any one lens. The cost of any subscriptions (photoshop, for example) calculated as a year's worth of subscription to whatever it is.

Can it be done?!

 

[BackdoorArts]

Are you asking whether it's possible to "go pro" starting with nothing but $7000 and a dream? I believe that depends on 2 things that have nothing to do with any of the factors you've mentioned:

1. Do you have the skills to differentiate yourself as a working photographer before you spend a penny?
2. Have you already built up a portfolio of images in your area of expertise that will get you work?

If the answer to both questions is "Absolutely", then I believe you can find equipment for that price to get your business off the ground. If the answer to either is anything else then you stand on shaky ground.

After that, the answer really depends on what it is you plan to shoot as a "pro". Studio work is more expensive to get into as it requires varied and specific lighting, backdrops, and requires dedicated floor space. For weddings you'll at least want a place where you can meet your prospective clientele, and also have multiple samples of books, portraits and other deliverables available for review.

I think if you're careful you can put together a two camera kit for $7000, particularly given that you can get the full compliment of required Adobe software for $120/year along with a starter website with Behance. The rest, being undefined, is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, and without specifics I can only answer, "It depends - but I'd never bet on anyone trying to do it."

 

[GeoWes]

Going pro also means becoming a business man. You have the expense of admin such as computers, accounting software, business forms, advertising, licences and permits, liability insurance, etc.... It's not easy, but it might/can be done. But Jake is right. It's best to have a portfolio and a specialty or two, before you start.

 

[southwestsam]

OK, well for the purposes of this argument, we will assume that:

- Your portfolio (before any purchases) consists of 25 images on a flash drive.

- You have a good (but not exceptional) skill level for your chosen field/s.

- Chosen génre can be whatever you like.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

OK, well for the purposes of this argument, we will assume that:

- Your portfolio (before any purchases) consists of 25 images on a flash drive.

- You have a good (but not exceptional) skill level for your chosen field/s.

- Chosen génre can be whatever you like.

Don't quit your day job.

Start off by doing as many jobs as you can while still working elsewhere. This give you time to build up a portfolio and see if you have the skill to make it as a pro.

 

[BackdoorArts]

"Good" is for amateurs. Period. Can a "good" photographer make a living shooting photos? Yes. Will a "good" photographer make a consistent living shooting photos? My money is against it. You're better off spending the $7000 on lottery tickets. Chance of success is about the same and at least the heartbreak won't be long and drawn out.

 

[gqtuazon]

I prefer working as an occasional paid photographer but not a full time. Being a full time pro takes the fun out of photography.

Some like it but business could go down hill without stopping until you become unemployed. Good luck to you if you want to pursue this course.

 

[southwestsam]

This isn't a plan of mine - I don't have anywhere close to $7k lying around for a start!

I'm not sure my skills would class as good either

 

[fotojack]

I'm with Glenn on this one. I used to do weddings and portraits a lot, but gave it up. Now I just do portraits as a hobby, with the occasional paid job. The other photography I do is aerial with a partner, but it's totally dependent on the weather and the jobs coming in. And like Glenn said, it would take the fun out of it if it was full time. Besides...I'm retired, and I don't really feel like working a full time job anymore!

 

[Steve B]

You also need to take into account location dependent variables such as how big is the pool of possible clients and how much competition is there. If there are a lot of established photographers with good reputations saturating the market then your chances of success are limited unless you can offer something they don't

 

[Pretzel]

My thoughts are... you can go "semi-pro" for less, and scope out several things in the meantime:

1) Is it a love, or just a profession?
2) Do your occasional clients love what you produce?
3) Does practicing your love become tedious when having to "perform" at the whims of others?

Now, to be fair, I know a few people that DO support themselves with less of an investment, but they are incredibly talented, and they treat it like a job even on the days they don't want to shoot. Plus, they're constantly pushing themselves into more of an investment. I'd even go out on a limb and say that a talented photographer could probably make a living with a DXXXX (pick a model), the kit lens, a decent zoom (200-300mm), and the Adobe 10$ PS subscription. All depending, of course, on their area of expertise.

A lot of what it takes to be a success, no matter the level of investment, is found in the person, not the expenditure. Yes, to become a LARGER success, you'd eventually need to make LARGER expenditures, but think about it. I'll compare it to the construction market. Give someone "good" $7000.00 worth of tools and he may flop, but give someone "GOOD" a few hundred dollars worth of tools, and he could be the most in demand handyman in town.

On the other side of things, I know a lot of folks that could make a living out of photography, based on both their level of investment AND their talent levels, but choose not to do so because of the joy stealing aspect of the have to shoot to live side of things. They are no less "pro" than the others, IMO.

Hope I didn't ramble too much...

 

[BackdoorArts]

Can it be done?!

OK, so avoiding the question of "should it be done?"...

Software & Website:

• $120 for Creative Cloud subscription and Behance membership. Assumes you are capable of all maintenance on you own without having to contract additional support.

Cameras: You need two, assumes you are buying new

• $2000 for a D610, which would be my recommendation not knowing anything else.
• $1100 for a D7100 as a second. Depending on what you're shooting you could go $2200 for a pair and skip the D610.

Lenses: Given the budget you will want/need to go with zooms and one or two good primes. Choices would include:

• $999 for a Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 as a basic lens for an FX shooter. Could opt for the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 and save 1/2.
• ~$800 for a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 as a low light shooter on the D7100 (essentially a 27-50mm f/1.8 that acts like 2 low light primes and all the room in between)
• $500 for a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens (if required, otherwise you are covered by the zoom at that length)
• Either $600 for a Nikkor 70-300mm DX zoom or $920 for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom depending on the needs of the business.
• One more specialty lens, either an ultra-wide, fish or macro, depending on the business plan - $400-800.

Other Equipment:

• $200 for a good tripod and head
• $500 for 2 flashes and remotes (figure Yonguo w/ Vello remotes - you can't afford Speedlights)
• $??? Lights, stands, umbrellas, softboxes, reflectors - it all depends on what you need
• $200-500 for carry bags and/or cases assuming you're not in a studio
• $100-300 for SD cards

So, let's see. I would want 1 FX and 1 DX camera, so that's $3000 on bodies. I want the 18-35mm f/1.8 for the D7100 as it kills more than 2 birds with one stone, and the 85mm portrait lens is a must if I'm shooting people, so that's $1300. Given that I have low light near range covered with the Sigma I'll opt for the 24-85mm "kit" lens which saves me $500 over the 24-120mm and covers similar territory before hitting the next zoom level. From here it depends if I need reach or light performance. For reach I go with the 70-300mm (and if that's important then I may also have been able to get away with a pair of D7100's), otherwise it's the Sigma 70-200mm because I'm not allowed to spend more.

Sub-total for basic gear: somewhere between $5000-5700 depending on the choice of bodies and minimal lenses. Tack on $$ for filters and software and let's just say that somehow you got in at $6000. That's without any of the ancillary stuff. Oh, and did you mention that you'll need a dedicated computer, storage and backup solution for all of this, because God forbid you lose a client's work.

You can likely nit-pick at some of my choices, but if you are thinking "pro" then you're going to want something above mid-level consumer gear, even to start, otherwise you're not taking yourself seriously, and if you don't no one else will. Either way, I am of the firm belief that you can't start from scratch with that budget and make a serious go at it. You can try and get by with a single camera solution, which is likely more than enough for certain types of work. But if that goes in for service you're screwed and out of business until it comes back.

So, in conclusion, I have to believe you've only got about 2/3 of what you need to make a serious go at shooting pro. You can compromise, buy used and keep your fingers crossed, but I don't believe those are parameters you ever want to enter into a business plan.

 

[southwestsam]

What an answer!!

Bonus point to anyone who can better that

 

[BackdoorArts]

What an answer!!

Bonus point to anyone who can better that

Oh, and I forgot to add, even with those bodies you won't be eligible to join Nikon Professional Services. They require at least a D300s or D700/800 and above. So while you might consider yourself a pro, Nikon doesn't.

 

[emm2600]

I think genre/market is highly important when considering equipment. Like others have said - the business side of things. What are you shooting, what's quality does it need to be, horses for courses et all.

An exotic telephoto lens + D4 may be needed for high end professional sports, a Tilt/Shift + wide angle + D800 for large-print architecture work - but slap a nifty fifty on any $200-300 used/refurb 10mp dx body and you could do relatively fine for general portrait reportage that will only ever appear in small print or on the internet.

Also i remember reading an article somewhere about a photographer who worked a busy tourist/leisure spot with a Polaroid instant camera charging ~$10 for shots making hundreds of dollars profit per day. Ultimately being a 'professional' is what you make of it.

 

[gqtuazon]

What an answer!!

Bonus point to anyone who can better that

I am assuming that reality is starting to kick in?

Great advice Jake!

 

[southwestsam]

I am assuming that reality is starting to kick in?

Great advice Jake!

Like I say this has nothing to do with me wanting to start a photography business. I have a well paid (& guaranteed pay!) job which funds my increasingly expensive hobby!

I'd like to make a few quid from it - anything over £100/year would be great - if I could but I've only had a 'proper' camera for 6 months so I've got a way to go before I could even dream of doing it professionally.

 

[Nero]

I prefer working as an occasional paid photographer but not a full time. Being a full time pro takes the fun out of photography.

That's why I don't plan on going past being a hobbyist.

 

[Mike D90]

Like I say this has nothing to do with me wanting to start a photography business. I have a well paid (& guaranteed pay!) job which funds my increasingly expensive hobby!

I'd like to make a few quid from it - anything over £100/year would be great - if I could but I've only had a 'proper' camera for 6 months so I've got a way to go before I could even dream of doing it professionally.

Nothing wrong with, or anything stopping a person, from making extra money on the side with their camera. I would try to avoid weddings, and other such "lifetime" event gigs though, as they cannot easily be repeated if at all.

Casual portraits, baby photos, family portraits and such can always be done a second go if the first did not go so well. There are some amazing pieces of work, very very salable work, being done every day with less than professional gear.

But, since you have a good job that takes care of your financial needs why worry about making money at photography? Just asking.

 

[Bill16]

I wish they had something like it for the US! But you can find a UK Nikon pro group you can join if you live in the uk and if you qualify by owning some of the pro products! I think there is a group like this for Canada too!