Photographer age bracket

Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous, firstly you are assuming that all young people entering photography have been to university and secondly even if they did I wouldnt expect them to spend all of it doing studio based work.

There is a lot you can learn from doing practice sessions like this, you get to see how real togs work and you get more practice. If I'm young and 'non student' then why don't I see others like myself?
 
I suspect there's a load of young photographers. Just not many that actually go on message boards, and spend more time doing it than talking about it...
 
I bought my first SLR (film) in the early 1980s, aged 26 or 27, although I'd been taking pictures for a long time before that. It changed my perspective on photography.

Right now (aged 59) I'm a full time professional (gave up the day job last October) employing two other photographers. One (male) is 18 and has been taking pictures for about ten years, the other is a female of 24 who has just come back to the profession having taken four years off to start a family. She had been a weekend warrior before that - and a damned good one too.

At my local camera club the youngest member by some margin is my 18 year old grandson and the majority of members are over the age of 30 with some well into their 70s and 80s. When we have location shoots it's the older members that tend to turn up. But with a membership demographic like ours that's only to be expected.
 
Cheng said:
I suspect there's a load of young photographers. Just not many that actually go on message boards, and spend more time doing it than talking about it...
Click to expand...


Dunno.. loads of young'uns on here :)
 
JakeT1992 said:
...
unless a binge on a saturday night is a hobby :thinking:
...
Click to expand...

:lol:

back on topic, i think why photography doesnt appeal to young people of this current generation as much, because of auto mode and other things, taking a good picture doesnt take lots of effort any more so the majority of people wont bother instead of getting stuck into it. whereas those from a previous generation didnt have that and those who wanted to take a good picture had to go through the learning process and that makes them more likely to keep at it as they had more passion to start with, and these are the older togs we see today. am i making sense here? :suspect:
 
FlyingShrapnel said:
:lol:

back on topic, i think why photography doesnt appeal to young people of this current generation as much, because of auto mode and other things, taking a good picture doesnt take lots of effort any more so the majority of people wont bother instead of getting stuck into it. whereas those from a previous generation didnt have that and those who wanted to take a good picture had to go through the learning process and that makes them more likely to keep at it as they had more passion to start with, and these are the older togs we see today. am i making sense here? :suspect:
Click to expand...

You say back on topic, but the question wasn't about why it doesn't appeal to younger people, the question was where are the people who it does appeal to when we know they're out there and quite clearly from the response on this thread and also the age survey one.
 
Phil V said:
And I thought the obvious maths had proved that's a non-issue. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Come on Phil, you know better than that. It only proves the point to people who bother to read it.
 
StewartR said:
Come on Phil, you know better than that. It only proves the point to people who bother to read it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it makes much more sense to make wild assumptions about why there's no younger photographers whilst surrounded by young photographers jumping up and down shouting 'what about me?' :bonk: :bonk:

Meanwhile back in a world measured by reason facts and logic... :shrug:
 
Sir SR said:
I started as a total novice at 32. Now 35. It's now sadly dawning on me that I'm apparently middle aged :lol:

S
Click to expand...

You might be ;)

My figures had everyone starting quite young (which most appear to btw), but if we allow for further intakes at 25, 30, 35, 40 etc the figures would be even more distorted towards the 'middle aged'.

That's the nature of simple mathematics, how statistics can show numbers and why we need intelligent analysis of the figures.
 
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...

Hmm. While the maths are 'right' they are not fact in so far as the link to reality is somewhat tenuous. The model is far too simplistic - this thread alone has enough examples of people who started, dropped it for a while and then came back to render the model invalid.

You are almost certainly right that there is a numbers game at play though. According to the CIO World Fact Book,people aged between 40 and 49 are the largest group (but there is another spike 20-29).
 
Furtim said:
Hmm. While the maths are 'right' they are not fact in so far as the link to reality is somewhat tenuous. The model is far too simplistic - this thread alone has enough examples of people who started, dropped it for a while and then came back to render the model invalid.

You are almost certainly right that there is a numbers game at play though. According to the CIO World Fact Book,people aged between 40 and 49 are the largest group (but there is another spike 20-29).
Click to expand...

The maths weren't meant to be precise, but it's obvious that there are more people aged between 35-65 than there are 18-25, therefore there'll be more 'older' photographers, drivers, dog owners, ballroom dancers, shopkeepers, chefs, walkers etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, it's pointless trying to 'analyse' a trend that doesn't exist.
 
I guess i am getting an older tog been at photographer a long time now,the only thing that is getting to me is lugging a full DSLR kit around all the time as i like to take a camera with me everywhere i go,so been using mirrorless cameras more and more.
The other thing i find theses day i worry less and less about mp and for the kind of photographer i mainly shoot theses days (street ) :)
 
Phil V said:
The maths weren't meant to be precise, but it's obvious that there are more people aged between 35-65 than there are 18-25, therefore there'll be more 'older' photographers, drivers, dog owners, ballroom dancers, shopkeepers, chefs, walkers etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, it's pointless trying to 'analyse' a trend that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

If that's the nub of the question at hand here then I agree.

Young = 18 - 25, a 7 year range.
Old = 35-65, a 30 year range.

As you've stated, the answer is obvious.
 
Young people are far too busy finding their feet and doing things to spend time at clubs.
The first time I went to a club was when I was in the army. It was another 30 years before I went again. (I ran the premises they met in)
Not every one are joiners...
Some professionals Join clubs, a vast majority do not.
Same with Amateurs, a very small proportion of any photographers join clubs.
 
Here's a different take on it.

I'm 51 years old. I don't really look like it (though that claim has become harder to make since my hair started going a bit grey!), and I try not to act like it. I certainly don't think of myself as "old", or even "middle aged". Logically I suppose I am, but it doesn't feel like it.

At my camera club there are lots of people whose ages I'd find hard to pin down. Probably 35-ish to 60-ish? They're obviously not young, but they're not old. They can't be old if they're broadly the same age as me (or even younger!) because I'm not old.

I'm certainly not as old as my mum was when I left home to go to university. I distinctly remember at the time that she was *really* old. In fact she was 44.

The person who started thread is 25. He probably would think I'm old, and he would probably think most of the people at my camera club are old. (But he's wrong, as he will gradually realise in years to come.)
 
I had a Fuji bridge for a few years at 16 years old, got bored of it as I found it limiting and lost interest...

fast forward to now (23 years old) and I spend a lot of time outdoors with work and wanted a hobby that I can do with my girlfriend who is also very keen.
 
id say the main reasons younger people dont get into it (and im 24 so i can say this) is that it is an expensive hobby. but also alot of young people now are so flakey. they dont stick to anything for longer than 5minutes. they cant be arsed to get a job half of them so whata chance do they have of putting time into a hobby?
 
Having read this thread I think I fall in the middle aged bit :'( if 43 counts. Didnt take it seriously until 2009 and I've been skint ever since.
 
A couple of things that took me from liking photography to wanting to be a part of it are working day to day with a very very able landscape photographer and havin a high paid job to fund it. So I think one thing that makes a difference is disposable income. And generally its the older people who have this
 
Last edited:
Thread cleaned chaps, lets not make this personal eh, even though your age is a personal thing...sort of... :p


FTR - I am 44 - I got my first camera when I was 11 and have had at least one on and off since then [more on than off]. I am sadly middel aged apparently but don't really care :woot:
 
I am 71 and took up photography at 65 as a hobby.
Had a busy life before that RAF and latterly my own business to
run so no time for proper photography.
Now I am in a camera club and have won several competitions to date.
Going to Edinburgh on Sat. loving it.
 
Bit dissapointed in the direction this post wen in, my original question was nothing do do with affording kit, what age you started photographing, how old you are now or when you got your first DSLR.

I was simply asking why I don't come across the young togs, that I know are out there, but never see.

I will have to presume they only come out at night.
 
connersz said:
Bit dissapointed in the direction this post wen in, my original question was nothing do do with affording kit, what age you started photographing, how old you are now or when you got your first DSLR.

I was simply asking why I don't come across the young togs, that I know are out there, but never see.

I will have to presume they only come out at night.
Click to expand...

Nope. As I said, I'm always out shooting, you just haven't been in the same place at the same time :)
 
I am 25 in a matter of weeks, I started up an event photography business under my own name when I was 23. I have a degree in human geography but realised after leaving uni that the jobs available were few and far between and not what I wanted to do. I'd always done photography as a hobby but 3 years ago went full time self employed and have never looked back. I have no formal qualifications, but have been freelancing for 6 years.

It's a very male dominated profession, most people are 40+, but I have done very well in my 2nd season (equestrian) and bookings are coming in for next year already. It works well for me, in spring and summer I am manic with the photography most weekends, in the winter I can let the photography take a back seat (down to a handful of shows each month) and help out on OH's beef farm which is the busiest time of year for the cows- they are housed 24/7 and most are due to calve between October and February.
 
It would have been a pretty boring thread if it was just numbers. People add a little personal info I'm sure many others enjoyed reading.
 
connersz said:
Bit dissapointed in the direction this post wen in, my original question was nothing do do with affording kit, what age you started photographing, how old you are now or when you got your first DSLR.

I was simply asking why I don't come across the young togs, that I know are out there, but never see.

I will have to presume they only come out at night.
Click to expand...

So the answer that statistically there are bound to be many older photographers than younger ones doesn't satisfy you as an answer?

It's a simple enough concept, has no political or pseudo sociological leanings, makes no judgements, and is as close as you'll get to a fact. If that's not good enough, and you don't want the judgemental line, perhaps we don't understand the question. :shrug:
 
I'm 27 and people usually look at me with surprise when I have 30/40 year old film camera's hanging from my neck. It usually strikes up good convo from fellow photographers or enthusiasts that I've bumped into in London.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top