flipfreak
Senior Member
Oh no, hope my kid won't tell me that (if he becomes a photographer):sweat:
start them young! give him a holga and ask him to earn his own pocket money shooting stock. :bsmilie:
Six figures annual income by 1st or 2nd year possible?
- Thread starter Agetan
- Start date
- Status
start them young! give him a holga and ask him to earn his own pocket money shooting stock. :bsmilie:
hotwork77
New Member
In theory it is possible. At $2000 per couple for the next 52 weeks will net you a minimum of $104K.
But then again, got so many couples getting married and wanting your services meh? I doubt so. It is more of earning somewhere in the region of $40K to $50K per year. It is just like the property agent or insurance salesman. Good ones earn million dollar commission. Not so good ones still hold 2nd job. :sweat:
But then again, got so many couples getting married and wanting your services meh? I doubt so. It is more of earning somewhere in the region of $40K to $50K per year. It is just like the property agent or insurance salesman. Good ones earn million dollar commission. Not so good ones still hold 2nd job. :sweat:
Yutaka Go
Senior Member
Of course, you can make 100 billions in photography :bsmilie:
Look at my 1st 100 billion dollars income :bsmilie:
Median for everyone.
Although I can only find link for monthly median now.
$2.6k monthly. Assuming 3mths bonus, only 39K annual pay.. even lower.
http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20091130-183031.html
Actually to prove something is possible is rather easy, you'll just have to prove that it isn't impossible.
Let's for argument sake, say there is a very connected amateur photographer out there. He knows all the right people (i.e. rich friends), who are getting married within the same year. Everyone of them is willing to pay 10k for his services. He only needs to do 10 weddings a year to reach the 100k target.
Now, in order to disprove this theory, you have to prove that there isn't such a person in the world. Hahaha! :bsmilie:
So I guess when Jed says it's possible, even by a small 1% chance, it is still considered possible.
This thread is so cruel to newbies.... This thread will give them hope, and they will start to offer wedding photography in the truckloads, and they will find wall after wall that their heads will bang into.
night86mare
Deregistered
IRAS sources.. good enough for you?
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/uploadedFiles/About_IRAS/Annual_report/IRAS%20AR%20appendices.pdf
See appendix 5. for resident, median seem to be somewhere at 50-60K.
Anyway, this appendix is too complex for my small brain.. Anymore useful data can be derived from this pdf?
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/uploadedFiles/About_IRAS/Annual_report/IRAS%20AR%20appendices.pdf
See appendix 5. for resident, median seem to be somewhere at 50-60K.
Anyway, this appendix is too complex for my small brain.. Anymore useful data can be derived from this pdf?
night86mare
Deregistered
the problem with IRAS is that i am thinking that 20K and below is blanked out......
you know why? 20K and below for yearly income = no income tax, so IRAS won't include the people in that category....
singapore has a lot more than 900K taxable residents la...
Please back that up ("a lot more than 900k taxable resident"). haa haa
Ok.. maybe have to rephase.. median annual salary for taxable resident as at 31 MARCH 2009 FOR THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT 2008 is 50k+
* Assuming annual below 20k is non-taxable resident
night86mare
Deregistered
sorry...... i made a mistake, what i meant to say is that there are a lot more than 900K singaporeans. :bsmilie:
the year 2000 estimate lifted off wikipedia, because i'm lazy, says that the figure is 2,973,091 (citizens, under breakdown by residential status).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Population
so definitely more than 900K, i would like to think. thus if you take IRAS' data, it will not give the clear picture of what the true median is, just amongst the taxable resident group.
Last edited:
sorry...... i made a mistake, what i meant to say is that there are a lot more than 900K singaporeans. :bsmilie:
the year 2000 estimate lifted off wikipedia, because i'm lazy, says that the figure is 2,973,091 (citizens, under breakdown by residential status).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Population
so definitely more than 900K, i would like to think. thus if you take IRAS' data, it will not give the clear picture of what the true median is, just amongst the taxable resident group.
For this topic, salary of taxable resident should be more useful.
2.9mil include school children, unemployed and old folks (who may still be working at food court or Mac, poor thing but that's anotehr story all together).
night86mare
Deregistered
bro, i think you still missing the point...
if say got 10 people,
5 earn 20K a year, they won't be counted under IRAS taxable residents.......
the rest earn 35K, 45K, 80K, 200K, 1 million.
end up, under IRAS, median income in this group will be 80K, when in actual fact.. it is 20K+35K / 2 = 27.5K.
do you understand what i'm saying? i'm saying that you're neglecting a significant proportion of the population that earn below 20K a year!
anyhow, if still don't get it, let's take it to PM.. a bit not nice to go so off-topic for so long.
Last edited:
I agree with you man. Lol. Thats how SG garment make things look real nice on the surface while neglecting those down beneath.
Anyway... Wedding photography business is getting tougher and tougher. Plus a lot of newcomers willing to slash price until the figures hit below 1k.
So.. If you have no experience and are hired to be a wedding photographer, don't be surprise if you are paid only $500.
Wedding photography business used to be a pretty lucrative trade but not now. Its not easy and the pay is low... Go ask those wedding photographer whether they earn more with event shoots or wedding, you'll be surprised by the difference.
Anyway... Wedding photography business is getting tougher and tougher. Plus a lot of newcomers willing to slash price until the figures hit below 1k.
So.. If you have no experience and are hired to be a wedding photographer, don't be surprise if you are paid only $500.
Wedding photography business used to be a pretty lucrative trade but not now. Its not easy and the pay is low... Go ask those wedding photographer whether they earn more with event shoots or wedding, you'll be surprised by the difference.
I know what you means by omitting those earning below 20K and am also prefectly clear how skewed the median could be. This 50K will be seriously skewed if we have a big potion of people earning below 20k as is in you example.
For me, I think by considering those earning above 20k is fine actually. It realy depends what kind of data we are interested in. If we are to pit photographer against those earning above 20k, this data is still relevant. It is always how we arrange the number.
Not sure about others but i think by bringing median salary in is not OT as it give you a number to crunch. 100K or 200k is really meaning less if said a Mac Donald crew is earning 300k. :bsmilie:
Anyway, I am fine if the median salary is to be 2.4K as provided by Finance Minister. The other articles I quote stated Median as 2420 for all employed resident and 2590 for all full-timers.
http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20091130-183031.html
http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20091130-183031.html
Yutaka Go
Senior Member
If it is so easy, every wedding photographer in SG will be using Hasselblad camera as main camera and Leica camera as backup :bsmilie:
My co-worker, who works as free lance wedding photographer, still charge people $400-500.
May be those who works full time charge $4K :think:
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
From a business standpoint, I don't see why it is not possible to earn a 6-figure sum within the first 2 years.
fotoudavid
Senior Member
haha main problem here is photographer mainly not doing businesses.....:bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
