Going back in time a bit, I have hundreds of 4×6 prints taken by my mom, maybe thousands of prints of her travels, most of which are meaningless to me. I’ve already thrown out a bunch, but I keep one or two boxes as a momento, and none of these have negs anywhere.

Going back a little further, I have boxes of my negatives from 1987 to 2002 or so. Plus several boxes of 4×6 prints. Lots of photos of all kinds of things that seemed important or artistic at the time, but very little organization to it, very little of it is labeled.

Going back a little further, I find the photo albums I’ve inherited from my parents. Mom used those “magnetic” albums for everything from the 60s and 70s, which means the photos are stuck to the albums. At least these are mostly organized and labelled, and I mostly have the “good” picks. None of these have any negatives, either.

Going back still further, my dad did shoot some slides in the 50s and 60s, many of which are mildewed and faded (again, digital technology to the rescue, thank goodness), they are mostly labeled and were arranged in their projector trays, since I have now scanned them they are a disorganized mess.

Going back further in time, I have a precious few childhood photos of my dad that are just gorgeous black and white, neatly arranged in sturdy archival albums (unfortunately not labeled). Very few photos from this time period (1930-1950), and each of these is a precious heirloom. I’m lucky enough to have some photos going back to the late 1890′s, and the further back you go the more formal and rare the photo appears to be.

I don’t have much of a point, I guess, except to observe that photography went from being a rare and precious thing, to being an explosion of quantity over quality. Thank goodness for digital technology to help tame all that. And thank goodness for the ability of digital technology to help me share photos via Flickr.com and geni.com.

Oh, and I still have several 8mm film reels, which I haven’t even viewed yet.

Really?

These essays almost universally fail to acknowledge the (ironically, far more well-known) similar meltdowns in the music, television, and movie business. The truth is, every industry whose product can be transmitted over the Internet is experiencing overwhelming changes, not just photography. This is no coincidence; the digital revolution has reduced the barriers to entry and distribution of content. This results in lower prices for consumers of the content. Some of the best-selling books for Kindle are free. Microsoft can’t make money selling encyclopedias. Movie studios fret about piracy. Musicians make more money from touring and licensing than from CDs. Why should photography be any different?

Further, the writers always seem to forget that we live in a Capitalist society, which is run by supply and demand. If a client is comfortable using a nonexclusive image from a source with high supply (microstock) and low price, why shouldn’t they use it? Similarly, if they desire to use an image that has a low supply — say, a unique news photo that cannot be replicated by amateurs in their basement studios — then the photographer and client are free to negotiate a price that both parties feel is fair.

As to the argument that photographers are hurting themselves, well, that’s an individual choice. I know a local landscape photographer in my area, and he handles all his own stock sales, at high rates. His reputation is well-known, his photos are better than mine, and clients seek him out to commission his photos. Fair enough. But I don’t have people knocking down my door to buy photography. When I started looking into stock, I didn’t have an extensive enough portfolio to submit to a conventional agency. The barriers to entry were too high. Microstock was, and remains, the best route for me to enter the photography market.

In the end, what annoys me the most about these essays is the fact that they offer no solutions to this supposed problem. What, every person with a DSLR and delusions of selling images online should apply to a high-end stock agency? And, if they are not accepted, they should just stuff their images in a drawer, never to be seen again? In what way is that realistic?

The fact is, there are legions of people willing to not only sell their photos for a few dollars, but many people willing to give away their photos for free (Flickr, I’m looking at you). Just as old-school photographers fear the microstock movement, I’m terrified of the folks who are happy to give away their stuff for free (and yes, some of it is quite good). To me, the difference betwen $4000 and $125 is actually a lot smaller than the difference between $125 and free. The fact is, it is possible to make a living selling photos at $125/pop. Competing against free is a lot harder.

Other blog entries on Microstock.

I don’t want to discourage you. I’d never want to discourage somebody young and talented. You could be the next Ansel Adams. Who knows?

However …

You should know that wildlife and landscape photography are very, very difficult niches to get into. The market (demand side) is shrinking, the supply side is skyrocketing. Just look at Flickr: zillions of people shooting these subjects and giving them away for free, or near-free. And the quality on Flickr can be astoundingly good. How can you compete with that?

Still, people do make a living at doing just that. I know several of them. If they can do it, why not you? However, I’d consider whether there are more lucrative areas that you are interested in, at least to help you earn money between the wildlife/landscape gigs.

If you live in the US, sign up for a free subscription to Rangefinder magazine. Every issue has profiles of photo pros, and tells how they make their living and how they got started.

A surprising (to me) number of photographers in Rangefinder specialize in one particular style. Some of them only own one camera body and one prime lens! Because that’s what they need to create their style. And people from all around hire them because they want a photo taken in that style.

Search around for web sites of professionals, and see how they make their living selling landscapes of their local areas, or local models, etc. I know of a photographer who lives in Cape Cod, so he specializes in landscapes of this desirable place. Lots of authors live in Cape Cod, and it’s a big wedding destination, so he also specializes in author headshots and weddings. He’s self-published some landscape books about Cape Cod. He’s made a niche for himself, he’s a genius about using the Internet for self-promotion. I bet almost everybody searching for a wedding photographer in Cape Cod will find and consider him. He doesn’t make a living a just one kind of photography, but he is living the dream.

You don’t have to jump right into full-time photography. You can start as a part-time photographer with a day job, selling microstock or doing weddings on the weekends. There’s even a mini-trend of “moms with a camera” who leave their fulltime job for a while when they have children. They take photos of their own kids, get good, and become known for the among their friends. They then branch out into taking photos of their friends kids, then over time it grows to a business.

These examples might not fit you precisely, but you see from the examples how you can start with something small, something you know about, something you can be an “expert” in. Then you make connections, leverage the resources available to you, and grow it from there. At some point, maybe you leave your “day job”. Or maybe not; I haven’t. One of the great things about photography is that it can be a fulfilling distraction from your day job. Something you can anticipate as a retirement activity, as Richard Benjamin did.

Search iStock for subjects you’re interested in. One great feature of iStockphoto is that they tell you how many sales each image has. Try to figure out: why does one image sell well, but other, similar images fail? When does an image tell a story and when does it not? The answer may be keywords or longevity, but more often than not it’s about the content.

Too many people assume beautiful images automatically sell. It’s not true. Images that sell are images that are useful. Being useful and also beautiful doesn’t hurt, though.

Further, too many people assume stock photography just happens, and they can capture it by walking around. That can happen. But more often than not, good stock photography is conceived, planned, assembled and executed with care (and a helping of creativity and serendipity). A good way to begin is like this: think of a magazine article. It can be an article you saw somewhere, or an article which you made up. For example: How to put fussy babies to sleep. How to celebrate Christmas on a budget. Something plausible. Then, create an image to illustrate that magazine article.

Keep the image clean and uncluttered. The message of the article should be the message of the photo; there should be no distractions. The easiest way to do this is to shoot on a white background, but it’s not absolutely necessary or even the best approach (I do this a lot, but it can be a crutch). The background should either contribute to the story, or be neutral; the background should not distract from the story.

One further thought: since most photos are used to sell something, know that positive almost always sells better than negative (unless it’s a really specific message, say about teenage depression). Clean sells better than dirty. Happy sells better than sad. Winning sells better than losing. Even if your photo is about a negative thing, put a positive spin on it (often with humor). So a sink full of dirty dishes might work better with person humorously looking at the dishes.

Should I clean my own sensor?

I think most heavy, serious shooters should learn how to clean their sensor. If you shoot a lot, you can’t afford to be without your camera for several days while a service center cleans the sensor. If you’re out on a long shoot, you might find that you need to clean the sensor on location. This is an easy skill, and you can do it. Be aware that you’re not actually cleaning the sensor, you’re cleaning the filter that covers the sensor; it’s pretty sturdy. Still, you should be gentle when cleaning inside your camera; you’re not scraping pots and pans here!

There are two types of cleaning: Wet cleaning and dry cleaning.

Dry cleaning:

Dry cleaning is done on a regular, frequent basis. I try to dry clean my sensor before any major shoot. For dry cleaning, I use a Rocket Blower (or Hurricane Blower or similar) followed by a few swipes of a Sensor Brush (from Visible Dust; more recently replaced with the Arctic Butterfly). Then I finish off with the Rocket Blower again, taking care to hold the camera upside down the whole time. I wear an LED headlamp while cleaning, to help me see what I’m doing.

Wet Cleaning:

Wet cleaning is only necessary when there are sticky gobs on your sensor. Because I shoot lighthouses frequently, and I change lenses frequently, I have to do wet cleaning occasionally; maybe two or three times per year. For wet cleaning, I use sensor swabs and the Sensor Clean product from Visible Dust. After using Sensor Clean, I give another go at using the Rocket Blower, Sensor Brush, and finally the Rocket Blower again. This almost always leaves me with a completely clean sensor.

Oil

Once I was convinced that I had a smear that was not cleaning properly with the wet cleaning method. I had heard that the Canon 5D was prone to getting oil on the sensor, so I tried Smear Away, another Visible Dust product. I’m not sure I needed to, because …

Dirty Lenses

Sometimes the blob on your image is not caused by a dirty sensor. It can be that your wide angle lens has a water spot on it. I had this happen on a few occasions. Now I try to do my sensor dirt testing at multiple focal lengths, or even multiple lenses.

More stuff to buy:

Between dusting and accidentally touching the brush, over time the Sensor Brush gets dirty and needs a washing. Visible Dust has a product for that, too, it’s called Brush Wash.

If you add this up, it’s a lot of products. How many you need depends on how much shooting you do. I would definitely recommend that most shooters do some form of dry cleaning.

More about sensor cleaning:

Thom Hogan has a nice Nikon-centric writeup. Bob Atkins has another nice writeup. Visible Dust has some nice product information and demos.

As for whether HDR is “cheating”: I’m sure the first time somebody picked up a digital camera, the film shooters thought it was “cheating.” The first time somebody picked up a Leica, the sheet film shooters thought it was “cheating.” The first time somebody picked up sheet film, the plate glass shooters thought it was “cheating.” The first time Niépce created an image with a chemically sensitized glass plate, the painters thought it was cheating.

So, we can see, all photography is cheating.