As a working photographer based in London, England I occasionally lecture on my own work in photography and also do visiting tutorials and workshops. Within these activities I attempt to touch on every aspect on the business of business and how to apply it to good photographic practice. I feel it’s my duty to do this, I can’t make someone become a great photographer, I can only guide them, albeit in a very limited way, but I can impress upon them the importance of long-term survival as a professional. ( as opposed to the amateur or hobbyist, seemingly dirty words in todays lexicon).

With your suggested and somewhat romantic business model, after 20 years in the business I would suggest that a large majority of the photographers following your advice;

["no agent, no website, doesn’t send out promo mailers, no logo, isn’t in any of the sourcebooks, not listed in the free workbook phonebook, has never called to see if I’ve got anything for him and if I hadn’t scoured the web and made a few phone calls years ago I would have no clue how to contact him"],

would be out of business within a year. Unless they are photographers fortunate enough to have private incomes, wealthy parents/partners etc. There are other photographers of whom commitment is approaching the obsessive, where comfort, security, relationships, friends & family take a firm second place to ‘photography’. Yes, the ‘Great Humanitarian’ who cannot sustain a relationship with their wives, children, friends etc. and in my opinion lose their humanity by rejecting everything around them that doesn’t support their vision.

However, for most of us we try to make a living from being creative in a complex, material world, shine a light on issues and stories that might otherwise go unrecorded.

Your comments I feel are insensitive and disingenuous, it is simply not practical or healthy for photographers to sit waiting to be ‘discovered’, yet, nor is it possible to keep producing high quality work without a private income. Any freelance has to work very hard building as stable a business as possible and it’s the brave photographer that uses a portion of their income to pursue the kind of work they find important or makes them happy instead of a down-payment on a Porsche. Believe me when I say I dearly love to pursue exactly what interests me but the year I won two first prizes at the World Press Photo Awards, (‘96 or ‘97, can’t remember), I was virtually bankrupt and that’s not a story anyone really wants to hear. I’m sad to say had no choice but to spend the prize money on an outstanding VAT bill, not very romantic, is it!

For some years I’ve been doggedly making photographs about pending sea level rise, I’ve sold various aspects of the work to several magazines worldwide, received a small (read very small), bursery to create a small exhibition and had three images from this piece shown as part of a larger exhibition on British photography at Tate Britain last summer. This ’success’ doesn’t even begin to approach the real cost of doing a project like this and without the constant pressure of applying business technique to my photography, you appear to deride so much, I would be forced out of photography in anything other than an amateur roll.

Your writing on Seamus Murphy sounds to me not unlike a pitch for a Hollywood screenplay. Pure Disney fantasy.

Would you clarify your comment, [“There’s something I really enjoy about photographers who could give a flying rats ass about marketing themselves to me.”] It sounds flippant but I don’t really understand it!

Seamus Murphy is undoubtedly a gifted and committed photographer and it’s great that you provide him with a platform and some income, but relying on your largess to feed my family…well, I’d rather not if it’s all the same to you. Never forget you have a job and a paycheck at the end of every month, it’s so easy to romanticise the ‘business of photography’.

You should read ‘The Nirvana Blues’ by John Nichols.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Olley