Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
I've been looking at some numbers for salary for Arch. Photographers, and Photographers in general, and the median seems to be anywhere from 40,000 - 60,000, differing between websites. I'm wondering if Architectural Photography is considered one of the top money making fields in Photography, and if the potential is there to make a large amount of money? Could you potentially make upwards of 150k, if you've got the talent and right clientele? Or are you likely making a ceiling of 70-90k?
Thanks for any help!
architectural photography is a much smaller field than even architecture. Most professional photographers don't do just one kind of photography. The likelihood of making big money as a professional photographer are slim.
There are a lot of photographers not on your list who don't clear 40k a year. It's a rough life.
I know photographers who do everything from portraits, wedding, events, architecture and still don't make 60,000. Good luck if you plan on doing only architecture. But like everything, you must know where to look for work. You could be the best photographer but make less than that someone's grandma if you don't know how to attract work
architecture is not a money-making field; photography is not a money-making field; architectural photography is definitely not, in the general sense, a money-making field. The top architectural photographer I've ever worked with (a fairly brand-name photog) charged around $5k for a day's shoot with one assistant (IIRC). The next highest brand-name photog I've worked with was at a day rate of $3500 with one assistant. Now keep in mind that a) you need talent to begin with, b) you need BUSINESS SAVVY to begin with, c) you need connections to begin with, and d) you need capital to begin with (photography equipment does not come cheap) and you realize that it is not an easy field to "make it" in. For the most part, there is no such thing as a "salary" in the field of photography - you mainly work on contract, with no security and no benefits. (Ok, there are a handful of staff photographers employed by various companies that might get salaries, I don't know.) But of my close photographer friends (wedding, event, portrait, architectural, and catalogue) not one has ever gotten a salary to be a photographer. And they all hustle whatever work they can get - and the one that does architectural photography in reality ends up mostly doing real estate photography (definitely not the same). She supplements with weddings and I'm pretty sure she's never made more than $60k in a year. She is my most successful photographer friend. Although it seems the catalogue photography business can be good if you get in with the right contacts.
If you want to make $150,000, study marketing and work for any one of the tons of large corporations in this country. Assistant Marketing Managers with a couple years' experience make around $100,000 and go up from there. $150k is not a hard salary to make as a Marketing Manager. Plus you will not have to scavenge for your own work constantly, and you'll get holidays and benefits and security.
Don't listen to these guys! They are all millionaire architecture photographers who don't like competition.
I would say that photography can definitely be an asset to any job if if you know how to do it correctly. A good portfolio of photos will help you stand apart from others especially in marketing like mantaray mentioned.
I don't know the particulars of the photo business but it's not easy because digital photography opened the flood gates to everyone who can buy a camera. Find a way to stand out and it can lead to an interesting career path you hadn't expected.
heyy.. aren't we all architectural photographers? I bet we are better than most since we have an education in architecture already. We know exactly what to shoot.. not just take pretty pictures. ;)
Is architectural photography one of the top money-makers within photography? No way. Fashion photography has a higher upper echelon, and the combination of news and stock photo can also rake in more. The big thing is that you have to develop a lot of clients, then transition to only working for the RIGHT clients, because you get paid your day rate, but you also get paid for publication rights, which is where you can make money passively, on photos you've already been paid for once. So if you can develop a client list that regularly makes the covers of big magazines, then that helps a lot (cover rights cost more than rights for a spread, especially because a mag often wants exclusivity).
And on the magazine hierarchy, arch record isn't actually all that big. Arch Digest or dwell would pay more, because they have more readers. That's a big reason that the top fashion photogs make more, because if they get to the point where they're shooting for Vogue, that will pay more than any building trade publication will. Doing things like shooting stock photos helps as well, because you can again continue to make money on work you did quite a while ago.
On the other hand, maybe you should care more about the median, rather than the top. Likelihood of being one of those top earners is, for any one person, very very low.
The stock photo rate (per photo) is seriously low though. You'd have to have a ton of photos constantly getting pulled to make any good money from that.
This is an old post, but since I have personal knowledge on the subject I thought this would be the right place to make my first post.
As somebody who used to shoot fashion and had photos published in local magazines, let me tell you, shooting people is not the cat's meow. There are plenty of photographers who think hot women or hot men in various states of undress are sexy. That's why fashion photography is such a crowded field. Getting to the top of the fashion photography field has a ceiling because the top magazines and fashion brands already have their line-up of photographers and Steven Meisel, Patrick Demarchelier, Russell James, etc. aren't going anywhere.
The smart money is on people who are skilled at shooting structure and spaces and have a passion for it. There are few photographers like myself who think shooting a building is sexier and more fun and more exciting than shooting Victoria's Secret models. And for that reason Architectural Photography is not a crowded field. It's a specialty field and that specialty comes at a premium.
In terms of an earnings ceiling, that depends on how much and how hard you want to work. If you wanted to make $40,000 to $60,000 shooting homes, that would be an easy number to hit on a yearly basis. Take Mantaray's example of the photographer that was paid a $5,000 day rate. I'm pretty sure image licensing was an additional cost, but to keep things simple, let's just go with $5,000 flat. You would only have to work 12 days per year to make $60,000! Let's assume you started at an entry-level day rate of $1,000. You still would only have to work 5 days per month to make $60,000 per year.
If you're good, you could easily make your six figure goal. And for the slow periods, you wouldn't have to shoot weddings or portraits or people at all. You could shoot real estate and make even more money. Most of the real estate, architectural, and interior photographers I know make well upwards of a $150,000 per year.
Interesting discussion. I never knew there is so much money in this. I myself is an aspiring photographer and would like to focus more on architectural photography. I am more inclined in shooting churches and parishes. See this page - http://www.amandabarkerphoto.ca (where I part time as a wedding photographer) the photo of the page showing the church is just one of my work. I know I have a lot to learn to be able to make big bucks. But sometimes, appreciation of the photos I shoot are enough for me.