RED Photographic wrote:
Won't they grow exponentially?

nope...why???...you wont need the photographer.

BCG wrote:
now that every cell phone has a camera and you can make real good prints from a camera the size of a cigarette carton, will technology cull the herd of talentless shooters???

They couldn't do that! There would be noone left to buy that wonderful technology.

Justin N Lane wrote:
...no more than 35mm, 110, disc and whatever other technologies of simplicity have sprung up through the decades.  Just remember, a shitty photo is a shitty photo, no matter how it was made.

i agree with this 10000000000000000%

RED Photographic wrote:
I may be dense, but I'm not getting this.

This is a BCG thread.  It doesn't have to make sense.  Just pretend you understand and go with the flow.

BCG wrote:
now that every cell phone has a camera and you can make real good prints from a camera the size of a cigarette carton, will technology cull the herd of talentless shooters???

A camera the size of a carton of cigarettes... that's a pretty BIG camera!!!

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Actually, a shitty picture is a shitty picture, no matter how high the technical quality.  Any idiot has always been able to make high technical quality.

-D

I think I understand.  A high quality shitty picture is really just a good piece of shit.

BCG wrote:
now that every cell phone has a camera and you can make real good prints from a camera the size of a cigarette carton, will technology cull the herd of talentless shooters???

Good question...  A good drawing pencil costs a couple of bucks...  I guess I should be worried that everybody with a couple of bucks will run out and become illustrators.  It would be far worse if the "herd of talentless shooters" decided not to pick up a cmaera or a pencil and just chose to listen to someone that feels they don't have the right express themselves creatively...  Contrary to popular believe "talented shooers" don't come ready made...  When you picked up a camera were you shooting at the level you're shooting at now?  Think about that before you take this stance.  Happy shooting!

The Art of CIP wrote:

Good question...  A good drawing pencil costs a couple of bucks...  I guess I should be worried that everybody with a couple of bucks will run out and become illustrators.  It would be far worse if the "herd of talentless shooters" decided not to pick up a cmaera or a pencil and just chose to listen to someone that feels they don't have the right express themselves creatively...  Contrary to popular believe "talented shooers" don't come ready made...  When you picked up a camera were you shooting at the level you're shooting at now?  Think about that before you take this stance.  Happy shooting!

Aplause, applause. I always wonder why folks get this holier than thou attitude. Everything takes time and practice...if you have the will and drive to learn it. Undoubetedly some of your stuff will stink but you get doing it, it will get better and then everything will turn up roses.

Tanya Fields wrote:

Aplause, applause. I always wonder why folks get this holier than thou attitude. Everything takes time and practice...if you have the will and drive to learn it. Undoubetedly some of your stuff will stink but you get doing it, it will get better and then everything will turn up roses.

Actually no matter how good you get some it still smells like a barnyard.

BCG wrote:
what concerns me is the fact that the level of acceptable quality has changed/lowered...and ANYONE with a rebel XT can take acceptable images.

Then that's a good thing.... More players on the field.. COmpetition is healthy..  It's one of the cornerstones of American thought...  If you feel threatened by these "new" photographers then I don't know what to tell you BCG... The simple fact is that ANYONE and EVERYONE has the right to shoot - if you can afford a camera or have access to one can shoot.  SOme people will become good some will just suck...  But you or anybody else really has no say in who can shoot and who shouldn't...

BCG wrote:
what concerns me is the fact that the level of acceptable quality has changed/lowered...and ANYONE with a rebel XT can take acceptable images.

Acceptable to whom?

NewBoldPhoto wrote:

Actually no matter how good you get some it still smells like a barnyard.

Even a shitty photographer has the right to keep shooting.

BCG wrote:
what concerns me is the fact that the level of acceptable quality has changed/lowered...and ANYONE with a rebel XT can take acceptable images.

This is true of anything this is a complaint that older people make OF ANYTHING THAT changes. As a 25year old I see myself making this complaint of things that will make things more convenient for the generation behind me. I feel like I had to work hard to reach a level of acceptability and now these little snots can just do x,y,z and acheive the same results. Then I say oh well, betta get on my game (Am I getting old...hmmm?).
Last  I checked, photography isn't some exclusive club. Some people will excel and never be successful, some will stink and make a little, some will be mediocre and make bucketfuls dependent upon what they are shooting. It is all about what you aim for, some just wanna shoot for fun some for fame, some for something in the middle. I personally don't think the pictures in Maxim are phenomenal but those shooters are probably making shitloads more than anyone else.

maybe we should concentrate on the doors that the technology is opening. 10, 15 years ago someone like myself would never have been able to afford the opportunity to explore photography and if technology can open the doors for a talented few all the while ushering in shitloads of mo-fo's who just wanna see some big ol titties, thats fine by me. Let's hope the masses are smart enough to weed em out and if we aren't then shame on us for being asses.

BCG wrote:
what concerns me is the fact that the level of acceptable quality has changed/lowered...and ANYONE with a rebel XT can take acceptable images.

I agree 100 %
It used to be the Instamatic 126,110, disc  vs the 35mm PRO camera. Nikon , Canon cameras with their quality lenes vs the  cheap pastic lens on the 110 and disc, aps.. No comparsion with the Professional photographers' cameras.
Now you are getting high quality lens, high mega pixel quality that rival the best 35mm , maybe 120 cameras at a consumer level.Remember the Yashica Mat 124? This is one less obstical that the GWC is overcoming. Next , is the composition, lighting , ect . to tackle by the GWC
Yes, Prosumer digital cameras are now a commodity
. Maybe in a few years , you'll see the Rebel SLR  type of cameras in your nearest food store along the  $ 20.00 DVD player.
Everybody is a photographer now.Its more of a hobby now instead of a profession. Can't make much money doing photography (referring to the Wedding, Portrait,Little League Sports Shooter)
just my .02 worth.

Justin N Lane wrote:
...no more than 35mm, 110, disc and whatever other technologies of simplicity have sprung up through the decades.  Just remember, a shitty photo is a shitty photo, no matter how it was made.

well said.

Brian Diaz wrote:
KODAK's Brownie is going to ruin photography!!!  Regular people shouldn't be able to take photos!!!!

That's funny. (giggles like little school girl)

Right only people who have been approved and licensed by the Photography Board who has been ordained into existence by the photography God.

Look, all the Photog who are out there making real money who live off this craft are not worried about this or at the very least they ain't losing sleep.

They know there is more to photography than the technology itselfr. It is the ones fighting for the scraps under the table (i.e. fame via MM) who are the most bothered.

So unless Mamiya makes a camera that is an actual robot version of Ansel adams, mario testino or Herb Ritts I think the talented ones are ok, you won't be put out of business by the likes of some GWC on MM or Other Model Place or whever who happens to own gasp!- a rebel xt!

Brian Diaz wrote:
KODAK's Brownie is going to ruin photography!!!  Regular people shouldn't be able to take photos!!!!

reguar people CAN run out and shoot...AND...a good %  of the time, they can take a GREAT shot...so why hire a dude who is going to charge them for the privilege of buying more images from him???

BCG wrote:

reguar people CAN run out and shoot...AND...a good %  of the time, they can take a GREAT shot...so why hire a dude who is going to charge them for the privilege of buying more images from him???

Exactly why would I have a photographer take pictures of my kids opening xmas gifts, I wouldn't. But Vogue, Elle, W or the BLK the magazine that I have premiering next month (yes shameless plug) hire a regular person to shoot their fashion spread. They wouldn't

Banana Republic, Gap, A&F, Rocawear, Baby Phat aren't going to hire my pops to take their images for their campaign either.

Again how real is the actual "regualar person with an expensive camera" threat.

or are hobbist scared that the next hobbist might one-up them?

BCG wrote:
reguar people CAN run out and shoot...AND...a good %  of the time, they can take a GREAT shot...so why hire a dude who is going to charge them for the privilege of buying more images from him???

Regular people CAN'T run out and shoot...AND...a good %  of the time, they take a GREAT shot.

Great shots from regular people are rare.  Dudes are hired because good photographers can consistently take good photographs.

Do you have the first few rolls of film you ever shot?  Are there as many keepers as you shoot now?

MisterChris wrote:
The cream will always rise to the top. That's it in a nutshell.

Well I guess that explains the sucess of Britney Spears, dosen't it?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Well I guess that explains the sucess of Britney Spears, dosen't it?

Another school girl giggle. LOL

But in all seriousness, we can't all do what she has do. Get such a lucky break and then shoot it all to shit. Now that was talent. See her driving with her kid in the fucking driver seat with her. Pure genuis.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Well I guess that explains the sucess of Britney Spears, dosen't it?

i did not know sicone floats ho what it must be all the air in her Head

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Well I guess that explains the sucess of Britney Spears, dosen't it?

Yes, it does.  She's the cream of the crap.





(Thanks, Sita. )

nathan combs wrote:

i did not know sicone floats ho what it must be all the air in her Head

WTF?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Well I guess that explains the sucess of Britney Spears, dosen't it?

I think there's some damn good marketing behind Britney Spears. Everybody knows the name. I didn't say the cream would always be recognized as such. heh

MisterChris wrote:

I think there's some damn good marketing behind Britney Spears. Everybody knows the name. I didn't say the cream would always be recognized as such. heh

good save good save

The Art of CIP wrote:

Good question...  A good drawing pencil costs a couple of bucks...  I guess I should be worried that everybody with a couple of bucks will run out and become illustrators.  It would be far worse if the "herd of talentless shooters" decided not to pick up a cmaera or a pencil and just chose to listen to someone that feels they don't have the right express themselves creatively...  Contrary to popular believe "talented shooers" don't come ready made...  When you picked up a camera were you shooting at the level you're shooting at now?  Think about that before you take this stance.  Happy shooting!

I think there is SOME merit to what BCG is asking though.  And a difference with your analogy.

I think the odds of someone picking up a camera and taking pictures that are "good enough" is highly more likely than someone picking up a pencil and drawing a picture that people would consider "good enough" to frame and put on their wall.

No matter how cheap cameras get, the odds are, the magazine shooters, the fine art shooters, etc, will not be losing working.  But other more photographers like wedding photographers might feel the pinch.  Why?  More and more often I'm hearing of people on a tight budget, having disposable cameras at their weddings and letting the guests take pictures.  Of course, it won't be nearly as polished as a good wedding photographer.  However, they'll be "good enough" to bring smiles to the newlyweds.

As good cameras become more affordable, less people will be taking their babies into WalMart or other mall studios as they'll choose to have them done by themselves or family members.

I picked up a camera and with very little experience, I started off decent enough that people liked what I was doing.  No mentoring, no training.  However, no matter how many times I pick up a pencil, I can't seem to draw anything worth admiration from anyone older than age 3.

BCG wrote:
now that every cell phone has a camera and you can make real good prints from a camera the size of a cigarette carton, will technology cull the herd of talentless shooters???

Only if the technology will automatically deliver a nasty shock when a bad picture is taken. The weak hearted will die, those that get frustrated easlily will quit, and those that persevere will, through negative reinforcement, have a showing at a gallery near you soon....

Brian Diaz wrote:
cream of the crap.

I think we have just witnessed the addition of a new insult to the English language..  This is great  - I actually laughed out loud when I read this...