>>4280382>But in theory if i were a sportsweddinglife photographer i would make moneyPeople who go to college or learn a trade and establish actual careers make money, anon. Outside of the nepotistic world of "modern" "art" (mostly fashion bs) photography is not a stable income source. How about wildlife, AKA "buy some really big gear and stand in the woods for 2 days until you can zoom in on a bird enough to see the ticks on it" photography?
https://www.joelsartore.com/about-joel/common-questions/whats-a-national-geographic-photographers-salary/Camera tech keeps lowering the standard for what a "working" photographer actually has to do. The thing about these WYSIWG, hyper-FPS, AI powered instant autofocus, infinite buffer, flawlessly sharp 45mp cameras is they were not created to help the guy on the sidelines still rocking his 1d for years. They were created to be bought in bulk by press agencies so that one guy could be replaced by 20 temp workers who have never used a camera before. Composition isn't even necessary, just crop that 45mp super sharp photo and it'll still be too high res for the news. Hyper FPS just means another internet is culling and cropping for $7 an hour. Some brands even have a live exposure warning in stills mode so you don't have to tell the temps and interns about the zone system (nikon lacks this feature, sony has had it for years, guess why, sony is a press camera brand and nikon is for enthusiasts).
Most peoples idea of a professional photographer traces back to film, to the guy who knew what he was doing to shoot just one photo and get the perfect photo every time with manual-everything analog equipment. That's not true anymore. Anyone even similar to that guy is being and has been replaced by temps, internets, and sooner rather than later, fleets of AI drones, because technology has taken the standard required to take a good photo and sent it so low it flew out of the ground in china and left the solar system.
