The Changing Photography Industry

[DennyCrane]

I knew that was coming!

 

[epp_b]

That is an ignorant quote, that shows a HUGE lack of perspective. Sounds like someone who walks around with blinders on not looking at the world around him. Very sad. I looked up this loser since I hadn't heard of him before. Yeah.

Whats mediocre? What's mediocre to you and why should the world care?

Not knowing him doesn't make him a loser.

Saying stupid **** like

Quote:
I truly feel there is something dangerous emerging here.


makes him a loser.

You're right, loser is not the right word. Pretentious, self righteous, holier than thou might have been a more articulate description.

Sigh... fine. Trying to convince you will be like trying to use a kitchen table to fly. I'm not sinking to this argument of dim intelligence.

And, inevitably...

 

[Rekd]

Sigh... fine. Trying to convince you will be like trying to use a kitchen table to fly. I'm not sinking to this argument of dim intelligence.

We have different opinions on how technology affects photogs, and you call us stupid?

Really? :er:

 

[KmH]

I remember the exact same complaints 30 years ago when cameras like the Canon AE-1 and the Nikon FE hit the mainstream. Waaaaa it does things for you! It's ruining the field! Now anyone can take pictures with an SLR!

Yeah, heard this argument before. I imagine we'll hear it again at the next quantum leap in technology.

Yeper! +1.

 

[Garbz]

The fault of this isn't the technology, it's to do with affordability. There have always been wedding couples who decided rather than hire a professional they'll simply drop a disposable camera on every table, and get uncle Bob with his Nikon FE to do the formal photos. The problem now is that due to the cost of entry and the cost of taking a photo everyone is uncle Bob.

Uncle Bob doesn't care about money, photography is his hobby, so he'll gladly do it for anyone out of the kindness of his heart. Same with me, when I took a photo of my workplace at sunset and my company asked if they could use it in their internal newsletter I felt great. In the meantime the photographer who normally does shots like this just lost $500.

When Uncle Bob can be satisfied with seeing his masterpiece in the limelight rather than paper with numbers printed on it and the results are the same as the Pro shot, what incentive is there to pay the pro? This problem dates back long before the digital age. The old portrait photographers of the turn of the century also had their industry shook when Kodak introduced photography to the masses with it's "You push the button, we'll do the rest" campaign.

Change happens (unless your're the record industry and have the lobbying power to get the government to screw bot joe average and uncle bob). Some people will adapt within their field, others will need to move outside it. I see changes in wedding industry coming. The survivors will be the high end photographers who provide photography as a complete service. The photographers currently making a living by charging sub $2000 for a wedding will be displaced by cheaper amateurs trying to make some cash so they can feed their hobby.

The results may not even be bad. In fact half of the problems stem from the quality being just as good. With that recent controversy of Time magazine's coverart coming from a stock photography site and costing $30 rather than $3000 shows that you can't necessarily buy quality. It's basic economics, and photography has lost it's reverse economies of scale.