Photographer age bracket

C

connersz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,468
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
I have been meaning to ask about this because it is always in the back of my mind.

I tend to mix with a lot of other photographers through group shoots and other events and I tend to find that I am usually the youngest (I am 25).

I was wondering why this is because I am aware that there are a lot of student photographers and so many are looking for work and these numbers are increasing because apparently photography is becoming more popular.

But I still wonder why I never come across them? Do more people tend to start photography later in life as part of some career change? or are they spending years training before taking on any work or events?

It's not a problem mind, I was just wondering why it seems like this :-S
 
You'll find that the older photographers have been here much, much longer - experience over qualifications imho. There's also a vast amount of young Togs that think they can take on the world of photography because they bought an SLR which isn't the case at all if you want to go into it professionally. There's soo many variables on why you won't see many togs, it can be money, experience, a phase / fad, confidence etc etc.

In your case, take it as a pat on the shoulder that you're young and able to do it professionally from a young age as that will put you into the bracket in later life where you rely on sole reputation instead of a piece of paper that still won't show what scenarios you can and can't cover etc :)
 
I see what you're saying but I never see them about, I am doing a lot of these things for personal experience and portfolio reasons but I would had expected newly qualified photographers kicking about.

Maybe as you say its a cost issue, but at RIAT this year I noted again that I was the youngest person with a giant lens, but I hired it for £40 so is there any excuse?

I see older photographers using the sort of DSLR's they sell in Currys with a couple of cheap lights from ebay so sometimes not even the next generation have all the money in the world to throw at it.
 
From the sixties through to the nineties, serious photography was quite a sexy thing to do and that's where the majority of DSLR users hail from - overwhelmingly male, and nearer 50 than 20.

Today, while there are far more photos taken than ever before, they're not taken on DSLRs that are generally regarded as rather more techy and unnecessary at best, or nerdy at worst.

That's just the way it is. Nothing to do with cost - high end cameras today are cheaper than they're ever been in real terms, and far better too.
 
What Richard said really - but a bit worse, white middle aged and male is about the state of it.

Yesterdays great spree at Garry's studio had photographers ranging in age from (guessing) mid 20's into 60's with the bulk in their 40's (at a guess) 2 women and 1 non white person (total 15). That's as bad as the House of Commons in respect of diversity. :gag:

The good news is that everyone was friendly and pleasant and all had a positive attitude towards furthering their knowledge.
 
Started serious photography in my early teens; fell out of it in my mid 20s (disposable income went down my throat...); got back into it in my early 30s and still am in my 50s. Dad was a pro when I was a kid and still a keen amateur until he was bedridden in his 70s and Grampa was keen into his 90s.
 
I had always wanted to be a photographer but until the dawn of digital I could never aford it in my early years, always other things to pay for like a house and food to feed myself so photography was never high in the list of hobbies.

It was not till I reached 40 that i could settle and actually enjoy my hobby with disposable income to throw at it, photography can be as cheap or as expensive as you want it to be but even the cheap end can still be expensive to someone with more priority things to spend money on.
so that could be another reason why you see older photographers as opposed to younger
 
Only a keen amateur myself, but honestly, if I sat down and thought about it, the only reason I tended towards a DSLR when they became affordable is because that's what I always thought a 'proper' camera looked like. Now I know that's not the case, but I grew up in the 70's at the wrong end of my Dad's Olympus (ie in front of it!), and it was just the way it was. When I could afford it, I bought my own OM10, but all they fell by the wayside when I was in my early 20s - mainly because I couldn't afford it as a hobby, and because my priorities changed somewhat (sold the OM10 to put money towards a ring!).

Kids brought an excuse to get back into photography, but only in a very casual way - cheap Minolta film bodies, but processing was still relatively expensive for me. It was not until digital came along (Casio QV10a - a massive 320x200 resolution), and subsequent generations brought me back to the point where I could get that proper camera back - I probably never really considered whether I needed a DSLR back when I bought my first 350D, it was just the 'right' thing to do. The Sony DSC-V1 it replaced worked brilliantly actually, and my photography took a step backwards because of the switch!

That said, learning how to make the 350D work as well as the V1 did re-invigorate photography for me, but again, if I'm honest - that was by accident not design!

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is being of a certain age, perhaps some of us are predisposed to migrate towards a SLR type body - where as if we were really honest, a 'lesser' camera would actually do just fine, whereas someone who has grown up in an environment with many more options available and in use, would be more likely to choose a camera for what they need rather than what they consider 'proper'?

** obviously lots of sweeping generalisations above, horses for courses etc, but hopefully you get the idea **
 
I've only just turnt 21, and have been taking photos since I was 18 with a DSLR, although only been taking it seriously the past 8 months or so! I know what you mean though, I've been to a couple of meets and I'm always the youngest.
 
I started when I was 25, bought a Sony Alpha with kit lens.

I only bought it as I wanted a new camera and probs like most newbies at the time I thought I would be taking stunning images in no time, But I was SOOO wrong.

im now 29 and have built my kit up slowly, looked out for used lenses just to build my kit up.

I now have 3 cameras (A350, A380 & A77) all camera's are used for different tasks, I have a wide range of lenses from macro, primes & zooms.

Photography without a doubt is a very expensive hobby. I think I have spent almost £4000 in the past 5 years and its just a hobby and my shopping list is still growing
 
skd said:
I started when I was 25, bought a Sony Alpha with kit lens.

I only bought it as I wanted a new camera and probs like most newbies at the time I thought I would be taking stunning images in no time, But I was SOOO wrong.

im now 29 and have built my kit up slowly, looked out for used lenses just to build my kit up.

I now have 3 cameras (A350, A380 & A77) all camera's are used for different tasks, I have a wide range of lenses from macro, primes & zooms.

Photography without a doubt is a very expensive hobby. I think I have spent almost £4000 in the past 5 years and its just a hobby and my shopping list is still growing
Click to expand...

I started when I was 20:D

Lets examine the maths here?

If the average photographer starts at 21 and stays with it for life? how old will the 'average' be? (start from 1970 - with an arbitrary 10,000 photographers a year)

Yep, that'll be 10,000 21 year olds, 90,000 in their 20's 100,000 in their 30's 100,000 in their 40's 95,000 in their 50's (people starting to die in numbers) 50,000 in their 60's (we started at 1970).
So of almost a quarter of a million photographers all starting at the same age (quite young) the vast majority are middle aged. That doesn't make it a middle aged pastime, that's just the cycle of life. You'll all spend a long time being 'middle aged'
 
I'm 18 and I find I sometimes get funny looks...

I picked it up when I was 16 and thankfully because I worked my ass off pot washing I was able to buy some decent gear, which is now starting to slowly pay for itself.

I think the main reason you don't see so may young photographers with decent kit is purely a cost implication, rather than just not wanting to do it.
 
27 this end and my partner for various events is 32, around here we are two of the youngest that the paper and local magazines use.. most seem to be in the 40-50 bracket
 
When I was 45 yrs old I didn't know what a DSLR was and probably never seen a proper camera in my life.. I had 0 money to buy one as well.. no budget.. someone gave me an old kodak dc200.............boom I ahd been hit :)

Kodak_DC200Plus_1.jpg
 
similar to hazza, im 19 now, picked it up when i was 16 with a bridge camera, bought my first dslr when i was 18 and been doing some part time club work outside uni to fund upgrades, hoping to build a decent kit and then make something out of it :D maybe as a full time job as well :lol:
 
This cost thing. My first decent camera was a Minolta SRT101 in 1970, a basic all-manual film SLR with 50mm lens, which cost £174.

If that's multiplied by inflation and increased earning power, it equates to something over £4k in today's money. Modern cameras are dead cheap.
 
I've been shooting since the beginning of my teens, saving pocket money for 2 years to get my first 35mm, doing my own developing and printing as I couldn't afford otherwise. After getting married I got my first SLR and a couple of lenses which served me well until I made the change to digital about seven years ago. Disposable income has a lot to do with gear choice for many people. Now fast approaching my "sell by date" I'm now able to indulge both financially (within reason) and timewise. Creativity takes many forms and there is never enough time for photography, my painting, family, and just life in general.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I started when I was 20:D

Lets examine the maths here?

If the average photographer starts at 21 and stays with it for life? how old will the 'average' be? (start from 1970 - with an arbitrary 10,000 photographers a year)

Yep, that'll be 10,000 21 year olds, 90,000 in their 20's 100,000 in their 30's 100,000 in their 40's 95,000 in their 50's (people starting to die in numbers) 50,000 in their 60's (we started at 1970).
So of almost a quarter of a million photographers all starting at the same age (quite young) the vast majority are middle aged. That doesn't make it a middle aged pastime, that's just the cycle of life. You'll all spend a long time being 'middle aged'
Click to expand...

Interesting point there Phil. It shows how enduring photography is, how it stands as an art/craft by itself, and also alongside just about every other leisure activity, and evolves around our lives.

In other words, it's not something you get into in your 20s, then out again at whatever age, never to return. I took a break for several years, using mostly just using a P&S while the kids were young, then got back to where I left off.
 
i bought my first SLR in the mid 80's ( pentax me super ) i would have been around 25 at the time although it wasn't my first camera it was my first SLR
iv'e had an SLR in one form or another ever since so i would say Phil V n HoppyUK are right it's something that stays with you
 
HoppyUK said:
Interesting point there Phil. It shows how enduring photography is, how it stands as an art/craft by itself, and also alongside just about every other leisure activity, and evolves around our lives.

In other words, it's not something you get into in your 20s, then out again at whatever age, never to return. I took a break for several years, using mostly just using a P&S while the kids were young, then got back to where I left off.
Click to expand...

I took a break too in my 30's, I think my point was to illustrate the 'compound interest' effect which makes it look more middle aged than it actually is. As you say, it's quite enduring and interests everyone from teenagers to pensioners.
 
I've always had an interest in Photography and I always thought I could see a shot, but had no idea how to take it! 5 years ago (i was 20) I bought a bridge camera, then a superzoom.

The main stumbling block for me was cost, having a house at 22 can be quite expensive so never had ANY disposable income. I'm now self employed so thought "Whooo!" I'll now be able to afford decent gear, now we have a baby on the way so upgrades will still be few and far.

I know I'm not as young as some on here, but when I'm out I also get funny looks, usually at night when I'm carrying my tripod around to do long exposures, I'm sure they just think I'm there to vandalise lol
 
Well i can see now from this post that there are a few youngens taking pictures, but where are you? I never come across you when I'm out and about unless you all look really old :-S
 
I'm 52. I got my first camera at the age of ten, a Kodak Instamatic. I stayed with small cameras until I was in my late 20's when I got my first SLR, a Nikon. I was and still am happier with smaller cameras and the only reason I got an SLR was that I was working hard and earning more money than I could spend and had started buying myself a present every month. I went through the list of all of the usual man toys and SLR was one of them.
 
I'm 21, been interested in photography for a number of years but never got round to actually doing it until I was 20, due to cost.
 
Im 47..... got my first (d)slr 3 years ago and was bitten.

I think it is a disposable income multiplied by spare time thing, a young family leaves no time for hobbies.
 
I know that this is going to sound controversial, but on the whole, young people nowadays do NOT have hobbies/interests outside of work.
I am speaking from personal experience, because we have around twenty nephews and nieces, and NONE of them play a musical instrument, speak a foreign language, sing, dance, make things, play competitive sport (or play any sport), and when we have a social gathering, they spend all their time together talking about their Iphones/apps and which concerts they have been to.
I took up photography in 1978 as a twenty year old, and I was already into various sports and activities.
My relations are like zombies, totally in touch with "celebrity" culture and image, unable to see any pleasure outside of buying things and going on expensive holidays.
 
28, got my first (only) DSLR five years ago because I was frustrated at how my old point-and-shoot was restricting the shots I could take.
 
andy700 said:
I know that this is going to sound controversial, but on the whole, young people nowadays do NOT have hobbies/interests outside of work.
I am speaking from personal experience, because we have around twenty nephews and nieces, and NONE of them play a musical instrument, speak a foreign language, sing, dance, make things, play competitive sport (or play any sport), and when we have a social gathering, they spend all their time together talking about their Iphones/apps and which concerts they have been to.
I took up photography in 1978 as a twenty year old, and I was already into various sports and activities.
My relations are like zombies, totally in touch with "celebrity" culture and image, unable to see any pleasure outside of buying things and going on expensive holidays.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you, I never had any real hobbies before I started photography. Sure, I love to swim and play football, and could happily talk to you for hours about football, but I never really had any real interests or anything I spent my time enjoying other than pointless internet browsing. Can totally agree with you on this one as a lot of people my age don't really have hobbies.
 
From a purely hobbyst perspective.

Maybe there are not a lot "younger" about photographers because,
#1 Normally can't afford it untill one is working.
#2 They are doing more "active things".

I was seriously into it for about 10 years (First SLR purchase was in 1962)
Then I discovered motor cycles, girls, and sailing.

For the next 30 years or so it was mostly family/vacation pics.
Got seriously back into it in 2006 with a purchase of a DSLR - it was like comming back home. Besides I am a bit too old for the sailboards and motorcycles, but I am still married to one of the girls from 40 years ago.
 
I'm 28, bought my first camera when I was 22 shot my first job when I was 23 I think.

I'm at the younger end of the group I see regularly through work (press photographers, other event photographers) though I'd say the majority are still in their mid 20s to mid 30s with a few older and a few younger.

At uni studying photography I was 22-23, most students were younger, fresh out of high school at 18-19 (Aussie high school goes to year 12). The group of international students was generally mid 20s to early 30s. Then a couple of Aussies in their late 30s to early 40s looking for a career change.

As far as I know there are less than 10 of us now working in photography, I think only one of us was a teenager in uni. Most of the younger ones probably saw it as a doss about, fun subject at uni but had no intention of putting in the hard work after graduating.

Cost didn't seem to be a problem though, half our class came from minted families who seem to buy them whatever they want.
 
andy700 said:
I know that this is going to sound controversial, but on the whole, young people nowadays do NOT have hobbies/interests outside of work
...
Click to expand...
mmm interesting point, on the whole maybe, but i do think there are some of us out there who arent the "social norm" regarding spare time activities. hazza/jake need some backup here :lol::D
 
FlyingShrapnel said:
mmm interesting point, on the whole maybe, but i do think there are some of us out there who arent the "social norm" regarding spare time activities. hazza/jake need some backup here :lol::D
Click to expand...

This, there are a lot of people out there at our age with no hobby, unless a binge on a saturday night is a hobby :thinking:. Within my friends I can only think of 2 of us that have hobbies, both of us being into photography.
 
connersz said:
I have been meaning to ask about this because it is always in the back of my mind.

I tend to mix with a lot of other photographers through group shoots and other events and I tend to find that I am usually the youngest (I am 25).
Click to expand...


Are we talking camera club type of "groups" and "events" here? If so.. there's your answer. Camera clubs tend to appeal to the more errr.. mature person in my experience.

The type of photography matters too. You mention RIAT, well.. people who photograph planes at airshows with DSLRs and long lenses tend to be kind of middle aged upward too. Photography students.. serious ones, on high level courses will be shooting editorial, fashion, advertising, documentary, or.. if long lenses are your thing... more maintream sports because these are the things that you can actually make a living from. Shooting trains, or planes at airshows is pretty much.. in the main... a hobby thing. I'm sure there would have been professional photographers there at RIAT, but they wouldn't have been mixing it up with the crowds I imagine.

The other way you earn a living with a camera is the mainstream low end stuff - weddings and social portraiture.. and there are just as many "young" people doing that as there are "old" people.
 
When I was working for Rockcorps, we had a number of photography interns.

They were all young (interns tend to be), but it was a very diverse mix in terms of sex and ethnicity.

This was shooting at music-based, social, volunteering events so would attract younger people, but thought I'd mention it as Phil commented on the lack of diversity as a whole.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Are we talking camera club type of "groups" and "events" here? If so.. there's your answer. Camera clubs tend to appeal to the more errr.. mature person in my experience.

The type of photography matters too. You mention RIAT, well.. people who photograph planes at airshows with DSLRs and long lenses tend to be kind of middle aged upward too. Photography students.. serious ones, on high level courses will be shooting editorial, fashion, advertising, documentary, or.. if long lenses are your thing... more maintream sports because these are the things that you can actually make a living from. Shooting trains, or planes at airshows is pretty much.. in the main... a hobby thing. I'm sure there would have been professional photographers there at RIAT, but they wouldn't have been mixing it up with the crowds I imagine.

The other way you earn a living with a camera is the mainstream low end stuff - weddings and social portraiture.. and there are just as many "young" people doing that as there are "old" people.
Click to expand...

No it's not camera clubs its studio sessions, group shoots or anywhere elese photographers tend to end up.

I was only photographing RIAT because I have a camera and know how to take a picture, I see plenty of variation of ages there but not a variation of people using the camera.

But the post is less about how you got your first DSLR or how to make money, it's simply because I see the work of younger people and know they are out there, just never come across them.
 
connersz said:
No it's not camera clubs its studio sessions,
Click to expand...


What do you mean by studio sessions? You mean these one day course type things? If so.. why would students go to those? They have 3 years of tuition in the university's own studios. Why would they pay for a day's course in a photographer's studio?

That's why you don't see younger students there... it would be a waste of money for them if they're already studying at uni. As for hobbyists... as discussed by many others.. Photography as a hobby only tends to be a middle age bloke thing.
 
Last edited:
I guess when I was in my early teens I used to think photography was a bit of an old mans hobby, for those retired etc. That was until I bought my first DSLR a few years ago and now I meet people of all ages on the travels.

The local club that I'm secretary of has quite a wide range of ages and everyone gets on great :)
 
Phil V said:
I started when I was 20:D

Lets examine the maths here?

If the average photographer starts at 21 and stays with it for life? how old will the 'average' be? (start from 1970 - with an arbitrary 10,000 photographers a year)

Yep, that'll be 10,000 21 year olds, 90,000 in their 20's 100,000 in their 30's 100,000 in their 40's 95,000 in their 50's (people starting to die in numbers) 50,000 in their 60's (we started at 1970).
So of almost a quarter of a million photographers all starting at the same age (quite young) the vast majority are middle aged. That doesn't make it a middle aged pastime, that's just the cycle of life. You'll all spend a long time being 'middle aged'
Click to expand...

A bit (a lot :)) off topic, that reminds me of the old question:

Why do white sheep eat more than black sheep?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because there are more white sheep than black sheep!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top