Anybody can be a professional photographer
There are no professional barriers to entry, no minimum standards, no accredited associations, no qualifications needed, no regulatory industry body.
There are, however, various clubs you can join to confuse clients into thinking that there is some kind of regulation, and that you’ve been accredited as reaching some kind of notional standard.
Official looking logos and acronyms always look good on websites and business cards, so I had a look at some of the most popular photography clubs.
I almost wished I hadn’t.
SWPP – Society for Wedding and Portrait Photographers
The first place I went was the SWPP. I know – it’s the Society of Wedding & Portrait Photographers, and I’m neither, but they do have various affiliated clubs that cover almost all aspects of photography – from the SISLP (Society of International Sport & Leisure Photographers) to the SIFGP (Society of International Fashion & Glamour Photographers). In fact the only ones they don’t have (yet) are the SIHPP (Society of International Hardcore Pornography Photographers) and SIPWRLJS (Society of International Photographers Who Really Like Joining Societies).
According to their website, they’re the fastest growing worldwide association for professional photographers. Also, according to their website, they’re not interested in websites or logos – for a professional organisation their web presence and branding is painfully amateur and outdated.
So I start to look around. The question I was asking – ‘Why Choose SWPP’ – is adequately covered. Apparently:
“All photographers are not alike! True professional photographers who want to further their carer [SIC] belong to the SWPP”.
Does this mean members must be in active social care? That’s not a good start – I was hoping for something that might appeal to clients, not a club for mentally or physically challenged photographers and their carers.
There is also another cautionary command for potential clients on there:
“Don’t settle for less. Hire a photographer who is a member of the SWPP You’ll be glad you did!”
I actually find that offensive. No, really. It’s a very bold statement to make, and a rather misleading one at that.
It suggests that membership of the SWPP confers some kind of quality. Luckily, there’s a handy link to dispel that notion – the monthly competition page where members submit images to be judged by, um, I could’t find out who actually judges. Maybe it’s Stevie Wonder.
Next I headed to the ‘Who’s Who’ page – it’s always nice to put a face to an organisation. Remember, we’re looking at the Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers here. Y’know, people who take portraits for a living. Seriously, go and have a look at the portraits of “the famous among the Society membership”. It’s like advertising the Gas Safe Register with a diagram of a condemned boiler.
Can any actual members that are reading this honestly claim they’re not even just a little bit embarrassed?
Looking at the T&C’s, it’s apparent that you don’t even actually have to be a professional photographer to join – you can simply be ‘an aspiring’ photographer. Which must be comforting to anyone booking a photographer on the strength of their membership of the SWPP.
I could go on, but I won’t. Law of averages states that there must be some great photographers that are members, I just didn’t have an afternoon to spend going through the list of members to find them.
The main aim of the society appears to be to offer training courses (or educational seminars) to its membership, in which case perhaps they actually have a vested interest in making sure their current members are at a level where they need training. Lots of it.
Final verdict? I might put a logo on my website clearly stating that I’m not a member of the SWPP. It would actually be a differentiator, as judging by their membership directory every high street photographer in Britain does seem to be a member, in which case where’s the USP of taking out membership?
I care passionately about good imagery – and that alone is enough to steer me well clear of the SWPP.
The basic idea is laudable, but for an organisation that sets out to create certain standards then the apparent lack of enforcement of those notional standard negates any slim claims they might have to credibility.
What’s left has the appearance of a cynical business organisation existing to make money out of not only its membership but also through misleading (whether intentionally or not) their membership’s customers. It’s like Egon Ronay awarding his own restaurant 5 stars.
Lastly, the SWPP is run for profit – which means it’s a business. And judging by the state of their website and literature that profit is not reinvested into the business, which to me shows little respect for their members. Epic fail. Join by all means, but for the sake of your integrity and credibility I’d keep quiet about it if I were you.
MPA – Master Photographers Association
First impressions are immediately better – their site, although still slightly simple, is at least clean and has modern inventions such as ‘colour photographs’ and ‘moving images’.
Reading the text though is again confusing to clients and generally misleading:
“Don’t be tempted to use a part-time or unqualified wedding photographer or you may not get the results you desire”
“…you will be presented with a list of Qualified Master Photographers that match your search criteria.”
“The Master Photographers Association is the UK’s only organisation for full-time, qualified photographers, all of whom are bound by the association’s Code of Conduct.”
Qualified Master Photographers? Qualified? Under what criteria does an industry that doesn’t require any qualifications start dealing in Qualified Master Photographers?
I could just as easily (and rightfully) decide my own set of criteria and award myself the status of ‘Supremely Qualified Unbelievably Amazing Photographer’ and then start charging people to be awarded the same status.
Looking through their version of the Awards there is a marked step up in quality from the SWPP (begging the question who does the public believe, when SWPP are peddling their members as ‘true professionals’ and the MPA has theirs as ‘qualified photographers’). It does however look more like a photoshop competition than a photography competition (check out the 2010 winners) and bears little reflection of the standard of most members. The benefits too seem greater than those offered by the SWPP.
However when the third benefit listed is ‘use letters after your name’ you do start to wonder. They don’t even bother claim to mean that the letters actually mean anything, just that you can use ‘letters’ after your name.
And again, it’s a limited company – whether for profit or not is unclear. Either way, there’s little that I would want to be associated with – so thanks, but no thanks.
RPS – Royal Photographic Society
This is more like it – ironically, for a society founded in 1853 it has a web presence that puts it firmly in the 21st century – something neither the SWPP or MPA can manage. Their ‘About’ is transparent and honest. They’re a charity. They award distinctions for photographers rather than notional and misleading qualifications. They’re open to everyone and anyone (and don’t hide that fact behind smoke and mirrors).
“The Royal Photographic Society is an Educational Charity promoting both the art and science of photography. Membership is open to all, whatever level of experience or knowledge. No qualifications are required to join, just a passion and love for one or more of photography’s myriad of genres, technologies and applications. Most of our members join to further their own photography and to embrace the challenge of working towards our world recognized Distinctions…”
They have annual awards too – but they publish an accessible list of the judges. The list of recipients over the years includes names like Leibovitz, Watson, Erwitt, Capa and Selgado – photographers people have heard of and (importantly) respect. The news page is regularly updated.
Basically, they look like they care about photography and their members rather than operating as a thinly disguised commercial venture.
The RPS is about photography, not trying to fool customers into thinking they’re getting something they’re not. And in doing so, they actually manage far more credibility than either the SWPP or MPA.
This is one I’d be interested in joining. Not from a commercial perspective, but purely from a love of photography.
AOP – Association of Photographers
Again, the AOP site is clean, fresh and modern. It’s charter includes the following:
“The AOP is a not-for-profit company that exists as a lobbying, promoting, educating and networking organisation for professional photography”
So, like the RPS, it is run for the benefit of it’s members, not the benefit of its owners. A good start. The Association appears to focus on the actual business of photography and protecting the rights of all photographers, not just its members. There’s an impressive list of real achievements that the Association has lobbied for over the years on behalf of working photographers and their work continues especially in the area of copyright.
They differ from the RPS by offering membership only to professional photographers (and agents & students) and applications must be supported by evidence of actual commercial commissions.
Randomly clicking on members portfolios is a million miles away from anything I’d seen on the SWPP or MPA.
These are portfolios that are inspire rather than embarrass – they make me want to up my game rather than rip my eyes out.
As with the others above they have awards – but in a reflection of the quality of their membership – their various awards categories are littered with fantastic professional imagery. The judging panel is equally impressive – including Monica Allende (Picture Editor of The Sunday Times), Zed Nelson and Simon Norfolk – people I’ve actually heard of and have respect for. People that know what they’re talking about.
This is something I’d want to be a part of – this is something I’d be proud to say I belonged to. There is every indication that the AOP is about excellence in photography and photographers not self-serving interests.
And I couldn’t find any mention of faux qualifications, licentiates or fellowships obtained by paying a fee to a mysterious judging panel. It seems to be where real photographers go.
———————————————
The problem with an unregulated industry – especially one based on subjective qualities – is that a commercial entity will always try and exploit that gap, in doing so exploiting both their own members and the general public.
It’s surely no coincidence that the two associations above that actually look to positively promote the photographic industry are both not-for-profit organisations. The other two – to varying degrees – appear to actively mislead the very public they are claiming to be ‘protecting’ by offering the photographic equivalent of those tacky nobility titles beloved of the socially insecure.
They’re no more qualified to offer ‘qualifications’ than you or I. Yet you can’t move on virtually any local portrait or wedding photographer’s site for mentions of ‘awards’ won from the SWPP or MPA – what they’re basically saying are that a shady panel of businessmen photographers have decided to repay their monthly subscriptions with a few sparkly certificates confirming that their entries were the least bad that month.
Seriously, you’d be as well putting your Model Mayhem Picture Of The Day awards or your cycling proficiency badge on your site.
They’re equally as legitimate. In fact the cycling proficiency badge is actually probably slightly more so.
So – why should any of this be of interest?
By implying some sort of ‘official’ status through clever wording on their sites the SWPP and MPA are suggesting to customers that photographers that are not members are somehow inferior photographers, when in fact a subjective view would point to the complete opposite.
They’re also actively devaluing the work of their more talented and innovative members by allowing virtually anyone to join for the correct fee. In fact, the benefit of membership (in marketing terms) is actually far greater for the technically poor photographers, which may be why the vast bulk of the membership are indeed a bit – photographically challenged. They get to add the letters, logos and competition wins in spite of the standard of their photography rather than because of it.
The distinction seems fairly simple – to me, the SWPP & MPA appear to exist to sell products firstly to their members, and in turn exist as marketing vehicles for their members to pedal any old rubbish to consumers under a thin veil of fauxthenticity. That leaves an unpleasant taste. The RPS and AOP are not for profit and appear to exist to further the cause of the photographer – the closest things we have to a true industry body.
I couldn’t possibly comment on your opinions Jay (although I agree about the RPS). There is another body out there “The Guild of Photographers”, relatively small in size but run as a co-op for its members. Yes the qualification stuff is still in there and as subjective as every other organisation. There are benefits in buying as a group, things like insurance, free legal advice, free mentoring, subsidised training days etc. I’m biased as I sit on the Panel for the Guild. It would be a shame if members purely joined for the accreditation, what we’ve done is make the initial mentoring and qualification submission free so as to encourage photographers to look at their work and ask themselves, is this of a good enough standard to supply to Brides and Grooms. There are so many very poor wedding photographers out there, I will support the Guild in its aims to improve the quality of photography in any way I can. Saving £400 on the insurance, of course, had nothing to do with me joining…
All best, I hope that life is good for you
Si
thank you so much for taking the time to do the research, I have looked at bipp etc etc and thought at the time exactly the same as you.I thought maybe I was being synical. Im still looking to get a qualification one that means something , but it needs to be one that doesnt involve fulltime college/uni havent come across any yet.
Hi Jay
Thank you for an excellent post, really interesting. I know I am way behind everyone but I have been considering this for some time.
And just for the record, these are my personal thoughts as an individual, a practising photographer, involved in and around the industry for 23yrs and having been a member of at least three UK based organisations.
It has to be agreed there are some associations that are run to make a profit for the organisation and some which are still run to make a profit but when doing so have rules that say that profit has to be ploughed back. In today’s world they all have to run as businesses and do business with others outside of photographers themselves. The only way to have a club is to meet in the local church hall on a week day evening.
Surely what it does come down to what we expect as photographers, it is partially about what we want .
If we are looking solely for what an association can do for us. Well then I guess you asking for profile and marketing. That is a purely commercial activity and to an extent we should not be surprised when the service turns out to be offered by a purely commercial organisation. If we want this it would be our choice whether we pick the organisation the outwardly (to potential clients) looks purely commercial (various listings books and sites available) or looks a slightly more friendly form of look at this photographer isn’t she/he good, we will vouch for their ability.
If we want something that is slightly more concerned with how we fair, the state of the industry and perhaps tries to insure those coming into the industry have the knowledge to make it sustainable for all, then this is obviously going to be less commercial as an activity. It is the kind of thing you would expect to be subsidised, whether be fees or externally. Which ever it is it is always going to be less about me the individual and more about becoming part of something bigger. Although you may gain profile it will be by association, subtly different.
My honest view is we need both, but should not allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes when understanding who is who. Ultimately we need to take an interest in something beyond our own studio, because alone you are just too small and without these groups the industry would suffer; terminally.
Another point just for the record when I speak I have a final side that lists around a dozen UK organisations that represent photographers in some area or another and this is not comprehensive. But other people may be interested in definitely include NUJ, Pro-Imaging, BPPA, BIPP
Sorry seem to have taken over your Blog, will stop.
Some photographer are there for other reasons (say’s sheepishly)
but decided early on my 18 month subscription the the dire ‘magazine’ that is the ‘Imagemaker’ that comes with the membership, summed up all that the organisation is about.
I joined the SWPP simply to boost the SEO, ( I notice rankings are also an issue
I had my doubts before joining even though we had been in buisness for 8 years, our google rankings were poor. I will not renew, but I will stay with the other organisation the ‘WPPI’ with rangefinder…the Americans are much more clued up in the social scene.
On another note, I had a chat with Grant Scott editor of Professional photographer and other photo related magazines. The conversation from my side was that I thought the state of ( high street) photography as a whole was shocking and that his newest magazine ‘Turning Pro’ was compounding the issue, he basically told me I was a ‘Domestic’ photographer and should know my place!…which was nice.
Ben
Hey Ben – long time no speak. I’ve not come across a copy of ‘Imagemaker’ – but probably no worse off for it. Interesting that you should bring up Grant – I’ve been telling anybody that’ll listen recently that under his editorship Professional Photographer has actually become a damned good magazine – a hybrid of BJP and the short-lived (but excellent) PhotoIcon mag. It’s the only ‘industry’ mag I regularly buy.
Roll up,roll up…instant credibility for only £10 a month! No criteria apart from being able to type your name, address, email and your BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS!!! oh and being able to upload a few of your pictures.
‘the SWPP & MPA appear to exist to sell products firstly to their members’ or ‘The RPS and AOP are not for profit and appear to exist to further the cause of the photographer’ I know which one I would chose if I could be botherred, spending more of my hard earned money.
Surely, spending the £120 on marketing / better website etc would be far more valuable than joining the first two associations in getting your name and portfolio out there.
Great blog.. have to go now as I want to be a qualified holyman to perform weddings, certified star gazer and accredited paper mache techinician all for a small upfront fee and monthy donation.. I think I will leave that Magnum invite, didn’t ask for any money so must be a con!
…and once again, you’ve kind of summed the whole essay up in a couple of paragraphs. Must. Learn. Brevity.
Great article, have reposted it everywhere I could! My thoughts exactly on the above matter, admittedly I didn’t know the bottom two existed, I shamefully stopped my search after going through SWPP, MPA and BIPP. Massive thank you for expressing your opinion, widely shared (I think), just not often publicly discussed.
Thanks Tom – not the first person that’s said it’s a widely held view – I guess it’s just symptomatic of the fact that photographers will happily talk to each other about everything except…business
what a blog! i just received a welcome pack from swpp, straight to the bin i say after reading your blog. What is the point really when you can have the same contact through socializing sites. So from your Blog i ve saved £10 a month.
Cheers Jay keep the blogs coming!
Cheers Gareth – glad it’s appreciated – you never quite know whether you’re just blogging to yer cat or whether people are actually reading. So ta for the feedback sir!
Nice post Mr Mawson! I must be honest, I too had lumped the RPS in with the other lot, but i will check them out at some point. Always had maximum respect for the AOP they really do make great efforts for the photographic industry and have some of the finest photographers in their membership. I have never been a fan of the “Pay us £X a year and you can put a badge on your site to fool the public” brigade.. Keep up the blogging Mr Mawson!
Good, informative post Jay that poses some interesting questions. Sadly, those who perhaps most have the right to know, are customers and we all know to what lengths many pro photographers will go to in bigging up their limited talent.
Hey! What’s wrong with field cameras? I love using mine, it feels like getting back to the root of photography. Looking at an image upside down on the ground glass screen can’t be equalled by any other viewfinder in my opinion and the quality from a 4×5 is something else.
Anyway, it’s all good to me. Use whatever you feel most comfortable with
lmao Nas – when you’re commenting on replies to other comments I know I need more interesting material to post
All of us photographers know that this is true, and I admire you for having the courage to say it like it really is. Even some of the seminars are about careful product placement, and word tags repeated every 5 minutes.
Courage? Now you’ve got me worried – I’ll watch out for the braying mob brandishing burning monopods and firing Gary Fong Lightspheres…
I’ve just never really looked at any of them before – I kind of knew they existed, but before turning Pro they weren’t entirely relevant. I see you’re a member of the BIPP – I’d not looked at them, but it’s the second time it’s been mentioned to me today.
Lightspheres…………that’s funny!
I am a member of the BIPP, and your blog post has convinced me to cancel my membership when it comes up for renewal.
I was interested in your assessment of the RPS. Every six months or so I get an urge to get involved with them, but have never got round to it.
Phil
I must admit my preconception of the RPS was of a load of old fuddy duddies with field cameras and cloaks over their heads – it was a nice surprise to actually see they looked relevant and fresh. I’ve got a totally different view of them now.