bottlefish

16-35, it's a faster lens, and sharper.

From what I am reading here it is quite clear that in order to make money you cant just be a poser professional. You need to quit your day job and commit your time to selling and marketing your skills, rather than images to magazines as those are basically free of charge to publishers.

Sorry to take it on a tangent, however I think that statement needs correcting, i.e images are not free of charge to publishers. They will certainly do all they can to keep costs down by finding cheaper or free ways to source images (e.g reader subimssions to name butone), however they do still pay for photos if they fit the article/requirement etc.

The start of your post, I agree with entirely. As others have said, as in any business, you need to apply yourself full time and commit to it, not just dip your toe in when the mood fancies. And again, as has been said, be open minded about diversification, apply your skills broadly to expand your money making options (although in the same breath, don't market yourself as a jack of all trades, people would often prefer the master when they're paying good money;)).

The test of professionalism is to come back with a brief accurately fulfilled. How many underwater briefs are made? Very few, I bet. In all my years as an advertising photographer, the only picture I took that required me to go underwater, I did as the 'underwater technician' to a top car photographer who was not a diver but had been given the commission by BBH for Audi.

Funnily enough, I got one just last week (all be it quite a vague one), allthough in fairness, it's on the back of some filming I'm doing, very much a "While you're there, if you get a chance". However in my experience, on productions at least, seeing a pro photographer on location is a rarity, generally speaking the job of stills is handed across to any spare set of hands that is capable of and prepared to press the shutter, with no payment other than the fact that they being paid a daily rate to be on location.

Based on that, I'd say the career prospects for pro photographers is pretty grim regardless of whether you are shooting underwater or topside.

They 'DO NOT' have the right and if the police will not visit them then we will not either, vote with your feet ...
,
Dean

Thanks Dean (I was begining to think I was chatting to the wrong audience!)

Forgive me for pointing this out (and laying in the boot), but the issue is not just whether or not Dr Mark Erdmann and Dr Gerald Allen were abusing the reef, but also, regardless of what actually happened behind the scenes or the care that was taken, the message the image gives to the general diving public.

Perhaps some of those 1000s of divers who bought your book will now believe that it is OK to lay on coral, I'm sure the majority of them wont have the same in water skill or experience, or be able to get that close without causing damage.

It's a hard enough battle trying to teach the unaware or uncaring to look after the aquatic environment, having this type of image from a set of people who are so well known and respected does nothing at all to help. Personally I'm surprised you chose the image for inclusion, surely you must have had an idea of the flak you'd get or the bad message it portrays?