How the public - and industry - sees photographers

[cgipson1]

Maybe, the issue isn't taking photographs. Maybe "Light Engineer" is a little pretentious, but really, isn't that part of what sets good photographers apart from the wannabees?

The trouble is, that with millions of wanna-bee's each snapping away like crazy... they eventually get a lucky good shot. And based on that one good LUCKY shot (that they could not reproduce if they tried), they get acclaim. That lowers the mark for photography in general, since it is longer just good photographers being published, but the one-hit wonders also (especially when they give away their work for a little fame)! Consistency and quality is taking a backseat to the sheer numbers of photographers willing to work for nothing, with the resultant drop in quality (and the occasional LUCKY shot). I think that is part of what Imagemaker46 is talking about above.

Remember the old saying about a "with a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters.. one will eventually reproduce Shakespeare?" We have a million monkeys with low end cameras... and "Corporate America" sees value in that... that they can get on the cheap or for free!

 

[IByte]

I shoot to thrill.

I shoot because I'm rebel with a cause lol.

 

[amolitor]

These damned fauxtographers with their easy-to-use dry plates are RUINING PHOTOGRAPHY. pace ​Robinson.

 

[amolitor]

This has been going on for at least 130 years. Technology has been aggressively changing the landscape for pretty much that entire time, albeit with some more level areas. In the days when most advancement was in emulsions, it didn't impact the profession of photography all that much, but it was still changing at a hell of a pace. Over the last 20-30 years technology has been more about getting more photography into the hands of more people in the form of ubiquitous digital technology, and advanced editing software (not just photoshop, iPhoto and picasa bring some pretty awesome tech down to a really really easy to use level, for instance).

Nobody CARES that your buggy whips are beautifully hand-crafted from the finest woods and imported leathers. Yes, they're lovely buggy whips, and it was REALLY HARD to learn how to make them, and they're still REALLY HARD to make and they are genuinely an beautiful artisanal product. Only trouble is, nobody wants buggy whips any more. Well, a few people do, so there's room for a few buggy whip makers out there. But, a whole lot less.

It sucks if you're an out of work buggy whip maker, you have my sympathy. I can't make the world stop spinning, though. Go find a new line of work.

If you love buggy whips, go make 'em. Nobody's going to stop you. In fact, we have endless wonderful tools for making ever more awesome buggy whips. Knock your socks off.

 

[imagemaker46]

Personally I think photography has made more drastic changes in the past 8-10 years, than at any other time in history. Obviously changes have been made in the past, but over a longer period of time.

 

[The_Traveler]

Personally I think photography has made more drastic changes in the past 8-10 years, than at any other time in history. Obviously changes have been made in the past, but over a longer period of time.

Absolutely. The digital advances that resulted into the digital camera are a perfect, perhaps even the best, example of disruptive innovation - advances that so change the technology as to remake an entire industry.
The change from plates to film still maintained a huge technical obstacle and constricted the market development. Once cameras got smarter and film disappeared, the huge potential markets forced the cheapening of the technology and the broadening of the market base.

 

[amolitor]

The changes made recently have been much more impactful to working photographers, for sure. This has been trending upwards over maybe 20-30 years, and it's really starting to get *ugly* now.

We could argue about the true pace of change over say, 1930 through 1980, when it was all pretty much emulsion work, but I certainly agree that in many ways and perhaps all, it was a lot flatter than either now or in the last half of the nineteenth century.

Most interesting to me, but somewhat tangential to the discussion, is the way we think about pictures. 30 years ago, photography was prints, Even 10 years ago the print was kind of the primary. People had digital images on CDs and things, but viewing them was a bit awkward. Except for, ahem, private materials, you wanted prints for the "main stuff" you wanted to look at. Over the last ten years, the print has really dropped to second-class status.

This, in turn, has caused a HUGE change in the way people view and use images. Pictures are, weirdly enough, much more ephemeral. We stick them in some sharing service, or some archiving service, which shows us the most recent ones. The most recent 10, 20, or 100 are 99.9% of what we're looking at. We take 5000 photos a year, and preserve every single one of them lovingly in some online service for all eternity -- and all anyone ever looks at are the ones from this week.

What does THIS mean to professional photographers? I dunno, completely. It does mean that people selling photography services are swimming upstream -- you're trying to sell for real money objects that are increasingly viewed as temporary and ephemeral. My thinking on this point is that professionals need to be looking ahead to providing more of an experience, and less of "a bunch of superbly crafted pictures". The photo-booth is an experience. The trash the dress event is an experience. People will still pay good money for unique experiences.

 

[amolitor]

Once cameras got smarter and film disappeared, the huge potential markets forced the cheapening of the technology and the broadening of the market base.

I argue (see ^^^ above) that social media and timeline-based picture sharing services are actually a critical factor here, rather more than the digital camera itself. After all, digital cameras have been around, even affordable, for 15 years or so? Something like that.

 

[The_Traveler]

It was growth of the entire digital concept that allowed cameras to ride that wave.
Once started, totally inevitable.
I remember seeing a Kodak digital camera demonstrated when I was at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed in 1988-9. This is mentioned on wikipedia. The pathologists and photographers used Kodak slide film by the truckloads for both photomicrographs and regular photography on forensic missions. The digital was dismissed because of the trivial resolution.

 

[imagemaker46]

Once cameras got smarter and film disappeared, the huge potential markets forced the cheapening of the technology and the broadening of the market base.

I argue (see ^^^ above) that social media and timeline-based picture sharing services are actually a critical factor here, rather more than the digital camera itself. After all, digital cameras have been around, even affordable, for 15 years or so? Something like that.

Good digital cameras that the average person could afford have been around for less than 10 years. I paid 10k for my first Canon EOS 1D back in 2001, that wasn't affordable for me, but it was necessary.

 

[imagemaker46]

It was growth of the entire digital concept that allowed cameras to ride that wave.
Once started, totally inevitable.
I remember seeing a Kodak digital camera demonstrated when I was at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed in 1988-9. This is mentioned on wikipedia. The pathologists and photographers used Kodak slide film by the truckloads for both photomicrographs and regular photography on forensic missions. The digital was dismissed because of the trivial resolution.

My first experience with a digital camera was at the 1992 Winter Olympics, Kodak had this god awful huge front pack with a screen hooked up by a bunch of cables to the camera. I still have the original digital print, and thought at the time, this thing isn't going any where. I was wrong.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

speaking of iPad

This asshat decided to step in the way at the graduation I was shooting at this weekend. I even had the 100-400 lens on so I could be out of others' way and try to shoot around asshats like this. Doesn't always work.

LOL, what a Padhole!

Don't be a Padhole.

 

[table1349]

And are you now going to recommend a bridge off of which I should jump too?

Let me google that for you

 

[imagemaker46]

speaking of iPad

This asshat decided to step in the way at the graduation I was shooting at this weekend. I even had the 100-400 lens on so I could be out of others' way and try to shoot around asshats like this. Doesn't always work.

LOL, what a Padhole!

Don't be a Padhole.

We used to carry empty film canisters to throw at other photographers that did this. One of the big things that I learned at an early age, before you move, look behind and see if anyone is there. Seems these days, courtesy is lost on the idiots.

 

[Gavjenks]

Most interesting to me, but somewhat tangential to the discussion, is the way we think about pictures. 30 years ago, photography was prints, Even 10 years ago the print was kind of the primary. People had digital images on CDs and things, but viewing them was a bit awkward. Except for, ahem, private materials, you wanted prints for the "main stuff" you wanted to look at. Over the last ten years, the print has really dropped to second-class status.

This, in turn, has caused a HUGE change in the way people view and use images. Pictures are, weirdly enough, much more ephemeral. We stick them in some sharing service, or some archiving service, which shows us the most recent ones. The most recent 10, 20, or 100 are 99.9% of what we're looking at. We take 5000 photos a year, and preserve every single one of them lovingly in some online service for all eternity -- and all anyone ever looks at are the ones from this week.

What does THIS mean to professional photographers? I dunno, completely. It does mean that people selling photography services are swimming upstream -- you're trying to sell for real money objects that are increasingly viewed as temporary and ephemeral. My thinking on this point is that professionals need to be looking ahead to providing more of an experience, and less of "a bunch of superbly crafted pictures". The photo-booth is an experience. The trash the dress event is an experience. People will still pay good money for unique experiences.

Eh? I looked at prints once a year or three. I browse nostalgically through my digital photography keepers folders once a year or three.