DSLR Camera

googler

We might be in a better position to advise, and comment whether there's money to be made, if we knew what kind of "part time self employed business...." the photographer is considering.....

Wedding photos?
Portraits?
Family photos?
Concert photography?
Landscapes?
Still Life?

C'mon, give us a clue

pitkin2020

googler wrote: »

We might be in a better position to advise, and comment whether there's money to be made, if we knew what kind of "part time self employed business...." the photographer is considering.....

Wedding photos? Money to be made if you can produce high quality images consistently. You only get 1 shot, ruining someones wedding photos will soon get around and you won't be getting many calls. Charging £100 though and you won't make a great deal after costs.

Portraits Family photos?? Ideally you would need a studio although you can do it in peoples homes or workplace. You atleast get a 2nd or 3rd chance if your not very good.

Concert photography?LOL everyone with a camera is clambering to concert photography and far too many do it for free which just devalues that whole side of the industry. To make any real money in this market you have to have a very good style that is sought after. It may even be a case of who you know rather than what you know

Landscapes & Still Life? Hard to make money but its doable, again though they have to be high quality and well thought out images to make them stand out from an uncle bob special. You could sell such images to stock sites for a couple of quid per use, add several thousand images to a stock site and you could make £50+ a week.

C'mon, give us a clue

Too many see pro photography as an easy way to start a business, couple hundred quid for a camera and all you have to do is the push button, if only it was that easy. The best pros are usually the ones that naturally progress into the industry rather than those just pursue it.

custardy

actually as a thought. Is there much money in supplying images to those stock photo places?
I have no intention of doing it,just curious

pitkin2020

custardy wrote: »

actually as a thought. Is there much money in supplying images to those stock photo places?
I have no intention of doing it,just curious

Yes and no. The majority of stock sites charge a couple of quid per image (depending on the image) which you will get a percentage. You need to have huge volumes a pictures listed with the stock sites to make any real money.

The problem is a few people think they will sell an image 10 times a day so it can look good money, in reality if you have a good image you may sell it once or twice a month. Competition is huge and like all websites some stock sites are better than others.

InsideInsurance

acstokes wrote: »

Thanks. The question has been asked for a friend. its clear to me that there is more to this than meets the eye - hence why i thought id ask on here. you seem well informed on he subject, are you a hobbyist?

I am 99% hobby, I do sell a tiny amount of stock photos but also the wife is doing an art degree (not in photography but did a module on it) and whilst excellent at composing shots isnt interested in the technical side (so thats where I have to come in )

Would that be Nikon ...?

For those with thinner fingers than me, yes (think we got a strange blend of Nikon (camera body) and Nikkor (camera lenses))

googler

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Yes and no. The majority of stock sites charge a couple of quid per image (depending on the image) which you will get a percentage. You need to have huge volumes a pictures listed with the stock sites to make any real money.

The problem is a few people think they will sell an image 10 times a day so it can look good money, in reality if you have a good image you may sell it once or twice a month. Competition is huge and like all websites some stock sites are better than others.

...and before you get to the point of actually selling them through the stock library, you have to get the stock library to accept your photos.

If they're not up to scratch, if they're in a category where they already have a surplus, or where there's a low takeup of people buying images from that category, they won't accept them from you.

patman99

I started with a Sony A200 which at the time, was rated way better than anything Canon or Nikon could make. Now, with both Canon & Nikon using Sony sensors in their cameras and Sony themselves 'dumbing-down' their newer dSLRs, I would be going for a Nikon.

My current kit is a Sony A700, this takes way better pictures than the camera it replaced.

It is also worth noting that, even a cheap dSLR can take some amazing images when fitted with quality glass rather than the glass shipped as part of the original package.

Check-out Colchester Photographic Society's members galleries to see what cheap kit can do.

Would I use my A700 for weddings ?, no, Only full-frame cameras are suitable for these.

dizziblonde

What people would go for is also linked to what they already have. Ask my brother - you'd get Nikon all the way - he's got a base set of Nikon lenses and so would just be adding to that setup. Ask me - you'd get told Canon - my first SLR (but I'm still an old fart who prefers mucking around with film when I get the chance) was a Canon so there's no way I'd be shifting system and having to abandon the kit I already have.

And yep - if your mate has no clue at all what he wants and expects to do the equivalent of going into PC World for a camera and come out with the ability to make a living out of it - no chance.