Photographer
The Grand Artist
Posts: 468
Fort Worth, Texas, US
I have seen this sentiment shared a few times in the forums by old photographers who are angry that digital made it easy for more people to get into photography and the photography business.
They hate Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and iPhones for making it easy for people to take pictures. They blame digital for the $50 head shot photographer and the $300 wedding shooter. Most importantly they blame digital for the increased competition for models to photograph their lifelong passion. Did I mention that they hate video on cameras today.
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need.
Most of the interwebs spend energy and time encouraging people to pick up a camera and get out and shoot and some to get into the photography business, but it seems like there are some here that would prefer photography go back to the exclusive club it was 50 years ago and all these digital people go back to using Polaroids.
Photographer
Grace Photographic
Posts: 20260
Abingdon, Virginia, US
I though the Polaroid killed photography.
Anyone could do it and it eliminated the need for the darkroom.
I came up rolling my own film.
I used to live in the darkroom.
I like the move to digital.
I spend a lot more time shooting now.
Of course you could say digital killed the Polaroid.
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 13200
Brooklyn, New York, US
I long for the days when photography wasnt considered a crime
Photographers were craftsman/artists not dangerous/creepy
Photographer
L Bass
Posts: 957
Nacogdoches, Texas, US
Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I long for the days when photography wasnt considered a crime
Photographers were craftsman/artists not dangerous/creepy Amen.
Photographer
The Grand Artist
Posts: 468
Fort Worth, Texas, US
Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I long for the days when photography wasnt considered a crime
Photographers were craftsman/artists not dangerous/creepy This is an interesting topic and probably one the forum should discuss at some point.
Artist/Painter
Augustine
Posts: 1153
Los Angeles, California, US
Photography: the downfall of Painting.
Photographer
Vision Images by Jake
Posts: 595
Stockton, California, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
I have seen this sentiment shared a few times in the forums by old photographers who are angry that digital made it easy for more people to get into photography and the photography business.
They hate Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and iPhones for making it easy for people to take pictures. They blame digital for the $50 head shot photographer and the $300 wedding shooter. Most importantly they blame digital for the increased competition for models to photograph their lifelong passion. Did I mention that they hate video on cameras today.
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need.
Most of the interwebs spend energy and time encouraging people to pick up a camera and get out and shoot and some to get into the photography business, but it seems like there are some here that would prefer photography go back to the exclusive club it was 50 years ago and all these digital people go back to using Polaroids. I don't think just the older crowd of photographers feel this way. It had definitely made the field crowded, No Doubt! Unfortunately, it may get a little worse before it get better. However, I saw it coming, but I did not think it would be this bad..... It is very saturated!
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
I have seen this sentiment shared a few times in the forums by old photographers who are angry that digital made it easy for more people to get into photography and the photography business.
They hate Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and iPhones for making it easy for people to take pictures. They blame digital for the $50 head shot photographer and the $300 wedding shooter. Most importantly they blame digital for the increased competition for models to photograph their lifelong passion. Did I mention that they hate video on cameras today.
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need.
Most of the interwebs spend energy and time encouraging people to pick up a camera and get out and shoot and some to get into the photography business, but it seems like there are some here that would prefer photography go back to the exclusive club it was 50 years ago and all these digital people go back to using Polaroids. I'm pretty much with you on your rant, except for the one line I bolded. I honestly don't think that "hating video on cameras today" has ANYTHING to do with being old fashioned, or resisting change, or being anti-progress...or anything in any way related.
I don't want video on my DSLR because I don't need it and don't want to pay for those extra features. I have no desire to take video...that is a completely separate interest/direction for someone to go in - and it in no way makes me behind the times or anything else just because I have no interest in video. My interest is in still photography. If you were a collector of vintage automobiles, would it make you anti-progress if all of a sudden, you HAD to buy a vintage motorcycle with every vintage car you bought? What is wrong with someone wanting what they want, and at the same time, NOT wanting what they DON'T want? The answer is that there is NOTHING wrong with it.
It's like if all the car manufacturers decided to put 4 rows of seating in all cars just because it occurred to them that they could add 2 more rows to all their cars fairly inexpensively. I don't need 4 rows of seating in my car and I don't need video on my DSLR - why should I pay for those features that I don't need or want?
Artist/Painter
Augustine
Posts: 1153
Los Angeles, California, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need. Around 2005 you had the release of the Nikon D200, the Canon 5D, and the creation and explosive growth of Model Mayhem.
Photographer
Vision Images by Jake
Posts: 595
Stockton, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm pretty much with you on your rant, except for the one line I bolded. I honestly don't think that "hating video on cameras today" has ANYTHING to do with being old fashioned, or resisting change, or being anti-progress...or anything in any way related.
I don't want video on my DSLR because I don't need it and don't want to pay for those extra features. I have no desire to take video...that is a completely separate interest/direction for someone to go in - and it in no way makes me behind the times or anything else just because I have no interest in video. My interest is in still photography. If you were a collector of vintage automobiles, would it make you anti-progress if all of a sudden, you HAD to buy a vintage motorcycle with every vintage car you bought? What is wrong with someone wanting what they want, and at the same time, NOT wanting what they DON'T want? The answer is that there is NOTHING wrong with it.
It's like if all the car manufacturers decided to put 4 rows of seating in all cars just because it occurred to them that they could add 2 more rows to all their cars fairly inexpensively. I don't need 4 rows of seating in my car and I don't need video on my DSLR - why should I pay for those features that I don't need or want? I understand what you are saying, heck I am old fashion and I would pay extra to leave the video off.... Don't like video on my camera, if I wanted video I would pay for a Video camera. It would be nice to have the option to choose.
I like the idea what you can do with post editing, I also like to see it shot right in the camera, but that don't make me hate photoshop, nx2, corel......etc. I don't think being old fashion is to bad!
Photographer
Alan Pedroso
Posts: 10159
Miami, Florida, US
With today's great cameras and free or cheap postwork programs anyone can create great images .
This has caused many photographers that made a living out of photographing weddings and other events to close down shop . A few friends I went to photography school with 30 years ago have closed down their studios and went into other jobs , like driving cabs for one .
Times change , only the best survive ....
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
I disagree to some extent. Losing money and market share has more to do with business skills and maybe a lacking in quality than it does anyone getting into the market or any lay people picking up cameras. Yes, the market did change but a lot of photographers rolled up their sleeves and changed with it. We should spend more time talking about success stories than dewelling on stories from those who didn't make it. Andrew Thomas Evans www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
Photography has gone from being a black art practiced by a select few to something that can be enjoyed by everyone. I think that's wonderful.
Photographer
Vector One Photography
Posts: 3722
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
It's the same in many areas of our lives. It opened up the industry/hobby/vocation to many more people but the problem is that very few are any good at it. People don't care about quality, just speed. There are actors that are great actors but aren't in many movies because they don't have the box office draw. Then there are actors that suck but they can pull them in to the movie theater..... there's just no justice anymore.
I am one of the old timers and most of what the OP said that I believe, I do believe. The problem is very few take the time to learn the craft, learn the rules, and have the vision. The mantra has become, "fix it in Photoshop". There are people saying someone is doing great work then they wouldn't know great work if they were slapped in the face with it. People are saying no rules or break the rules but first you have to know what the rules are to DECIDE to break them, not break them because you are ignorant of them. Btw, in 99% of the time, the rules make a better photograph.
The issue about digital dropping the prices is the same as most of what we purchase is made in China. People are more concerned about price then quality and it becomes a simple supply and demand issue.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Vision Images by Jake wrote:
I don't think just the older crowd of photographers feel this way. It had definitely made the field crowded, No Doubt! Unfortunately, it may get a little worse before it get better. However, I saw it coming, but I did not think it would be this bad..... It is very saturated! I'm more busy than ever and picking up new work and clients all the time. Sure it is saturated but that just means I need to work harder and create better images than the next person.
The goal for next year is to contenue the growth, outsource retouching (hopefully locally) and gain market share from the old guys.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Michael DBA Expressions
Posts: 3730
Lynchburg, Virginia, US
Grace Photographic wrote:
I though the Polaroid killed photography.
Anyone could do it and it eliminated the need for the darkroom.
I came up rolling my own film.
I used to live in the darkroom.
I like the move to digital.
I spend a lot more time shooting now.
Of course you could say digital killed the Polaroid. I agree.
Me, too.
Digital has killed film. But there have always been folks who believed that merely purchasing a reasonably capable camera made them Professional Photographers. Back in the late '60s, you could buy a serviceable 35mm SLR with a kit lens for $125 or so. Today it's an iPhone or Android phone, and they are free (or nearly so, if you don't count the monthly service fees, and people don't do that).
It wasn't true that having capable gear made you a pro shooter. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now, either. It only seems that everyone believes that. Because that isn't true either.
What is true is that it is tough to make a living peddling photos. But that has always been true, too. To make a living at it, you have to offer something "they" can't do for themselves. But that has always been the case as well.
Digital just changed the tools and methods needed to do what they can't.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
Kent Art Photography wrote:
Photography has gone from being a black art practiced by a select few to something that can be enjoyed by everyone. I think that's wonderful. +1
 Aren't those the same old farts that adopted the technology that wrote all the books that I bought to learn this?
If we all developed this mindset that the technological advancements are bad then we would still be in the stone age.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
3068875 wrote:
Photography Photoshop: the downfall of Painting.
: )
Photographer
805 Photographer
Posts: 78
Ventura, California, US
Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I long for the days when photography wasnt considered a crime
Photographers were craftsman/artists not dangerous/creepy +1000
Photographer
Leonard Gee Photography
Posts: 18096
Sacramento, California, US
Digital made some things easier. It also cause some photographers to be more stupid.
Few know how to manual focus. You get complaints of focus issues that are mostly user error. There is massive confusion about color theory with users asking how to get this "soft" focus - when the image is perfectly sharp. Low contrast and low saturation isn't the same as soft focus. They don't understand what they see. Of course they can't get the look.
They assume that because the image turned out, it means they can turn pro. Generally there are some great improvements in the hobby field and it has enabled artists to do things that were difficult to do. Just that there is also a rash of punters who think digital has turned them into pros instantly.
Photographer
Alan Pedroso
Posts: 10159
Miami, Florida, US
Kent Art Photography wrote:
Photography has gone from being a black art practiced by a select few to something that can be enjoyed by everyone. I think that's wonderful. This I agree with 100 %
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
I have seen this sentiment shared a few times in the forums by old photographers who are angry that digital made it easy for more people to get into photography and the photography business.
They hate Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and iPhones for making it easy for people to take pictures. They blame digital for the $50 head shot photographer and the $300 wedding shooter. Most importantly they blame digital for the increased competition for models to photograph their lifelong passion. Did I mention that they hate video on cameras today.
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need.
Most of the interwebs spend energy and time encouraging people to pick up a camera and get out and shoot and some to get into the photography business, but it seems like there are some here that would prefer photography go back to the exclusive club it was 50 years ago and all these digital people go back to using Polaroids. There are no stupid questions.
However, this is not a question. It is a statement and a stupid one.
First of all, who do you think made digital photography a possibility? A great many of the people who developed the technology are now old. You sound like one of the young "computer whizes" who never stops to think that whole computer industry was conceived and developed by "old people" of today.
Yep, most of us "old" photographers cut our teeth on film and did our own darkroom work. Digital just wasn't around then.
So, Punk, FYI, there are thousands of "old photographers" who completely embrace the "Digital Evolution" in general and digital photography and video in particular. My first digital camera was a "Mavica". It came after I had my Sony video camera. From your lack of tact, perspective, and maturity, it would seem you probably weren't even around when it was introduced. My next, in a long string of video cams, will be a 4K cam (currently, I only am able to shoot in HD). I have, and use, a D800, a modified DSLR for InfraRed, 4 computers, an iPad, an iPhone, and a number of electronic gadgets that you never heard of (and may never hear of, if you're lucky).
And, lets not be too swift to "knock" the presence of video on cams. Personally, I don't buy DSLR's because they have video, though sometimes I use that feature at sports events. If it weren't for the processing demands of video in cameras, manufacturers might be less likely to develop things like high frame rates for DSLR's.
For sure, there may be a few 'senior citizens' who have eschewed some of the higher points of digital life, but don't make the mistake of assuming we all are in that boat. Never piss off an old person; especially, don't piss us all off by blanket, denigrating, insulting statements. At lunch time, we may not remember what we ate for breakfast, but we never forget who pissed on our boot.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
I have seen this sentiment shared a few times in the forums by old photographers who are angry that digital made it easy for more people to get into photography and the photography business.
They hate Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and iPhones for making it easy for people to take pictures. They blame digital for the $50 head shot photographer and the $300 wedding shooter. Most importantly they blame digital for the increased competition for models to photograph their lifelong passion. Did I mention that they hate video on cameras today.
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need.
Most of the interwebs spend energy and time encouraging people to pick up a camera and get out and shoot and some to get into the photography business, but it seems like there are some here that would prefer photography go back to the exclusive club it was 50 years ago and all these digital people go back to using Polaroids. Special people hate it when they are no longer special. Totally understandable. Happens to just about everyone. Not much different than jobs that get replaced by automation, etc.
If photography was still film based, I probably wouldn't be doing this. I don't have the attention span/desire to deal with film. I LOVE and crave technology and when digital matured...I embraced it. I often used to tell people that digital cameras were a mistake back when 3.1 and less was the rage. They were better off getting a film camera (I didn't consider lens quality as I didn't even own a camera....so I was clueless) and a good scanner if they wanted good quality images they could print at 8x10 or larger.
But once cameras hit that 5.0mp range and I picked up my first Nikon Coolpix 5700 camera...that's when my REAL education started (lens quality, sensor size) but that marked (2003) a time I felt digital has finally reached a point that it was a good format from which to produce prints.
Photographer
REMOVED
Posts: 1546
Atlanta, Georgia, US
What follows is personal opinion, not available in all areas, your results may vary, some restrictions may apply.
1. Don't generalize.
2. Facebook did not make photography "easier".
3. From my market observations, I can say there are actually more photography business failures among the young, often overestimating their ability, than among older photographers more aware of their marketability.
4. Facebook is hated by many high end photographers as a rights grabbing ripoff, which by it's TOS, (rarely read) it realy is.
5. Most of the top International A-list photographers, Mario Testino, Albert Watson, Patrick Demarchelier, are over 50, and more technologically savy than most, so your lack of industry insight has brought on such flawed generalizations.
6. Concern yourself with your own growth, which you can influence, rather than others which are beyond your influence.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm pretty much with you on your rant, except for the one line I bolded. I honestly don't think that "hating video on cameras today" has ANYTHING to do with being old fashioned, or resisting change, or being anti-progress...or anything in any way related.
I don't want video on my DSLR because I don't need it and don't want to pay for those extra features. I have no desire to take video...that is a completely separate interest/direction for someone to go in - and it in no way makes me behind the times or anything else just because I have no interest in video. My interest is in still photography. If you were a collector of vintage automobiles, would it make you anti-progress if all of a sudden, you HAD to buy a vintage motorcycle with every vintage car you bought? What is wrong with someone wanting what they want, and at the same time, NOT wanting what they DON'T want? The answer is that there is NOTHING wrong with it.
It's like if all the car manufacturers decided to put 4 rows of seating in all cars just because it occurred to them that they could add 2 more rows to all their cars fairly inexpensively. I don't need 4 rows of seating in my car and I don't need video on my DSLR - why should I pay for those features that I don't need or want? Oh please.
You're not paying extra for these features. It doesn't cost anything for these manufacturers to slap a video function into the processors in DSLR cameras. This is evident in the pricing and market for the Nikon Df. There is no unique design or hardware added to these cameras for the video function. Ok, there's a small red button, that can be re-assigned if you want. But you're not paying extra for it.
Quit your whining and just don't ever use the video function if you don't want to.
My car has tons of things on it that I didn't want and don't use. The spare tire, for one. I've never used it in 12 years. I paid for it though, and it's taking up space and contributing weight that I don't need. So your analogy fails. Video doesn't affect your still photography camera. There is no overhead and it didn't cost you more. It's several lines of code in the processor.
To the OP, yes, the "market" is over-saturated with photographers, and as such, median prices that people charge has really gone low. The best of the best can still write their own ticket though. The sad truth though is that for about 99% of all clients, "good enough" is good enough and won't pay for the best. With the technology and free tutorials available, "good enough" is actually pretty good.
So, yes, I sort of do wish the club was more exclusive. But then if it were, maybe I wouldn't have access to all that I do.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I disagree to some extent.
Losing money and market share has more to do with business skills and maybe a lacking in quality than it does anyone getting into the market or any lay people picking up cameras.
Yes, the market did change but a lot of photographers rolled up their sleeves and changed with it. We should spend more time talking about success stories than dewelling on stories from those who didn't make it.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com Yep.
Digital didn't kill photography, it just made it a tougher business. One in which it wasn't enough to be a craftsman or artist, you also had to be a marketer and salesman and business manager.
It made what was the norm in NYC (tough competition) the norm across the country (and to some extent, across the world).
Back in the early 90s, I knew lots of talented photographers who came to NYC to make their fortune. They'd been doing ok in their home market and thought they were ready for the big city. Very few of them were successful. Not because they weren't good photographers - but because they weren't good business people.
When digital came along, the same dynamic hit across the board. If you didn't have the business skills, your business wasn't going to survive. No matter how good a photographer you were.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
It's like if all the car manufacturers decided to put 4 rows of seating in all cars just because it occurred to them that they could add 2 more rows to all their cars fairly inexpensively. I don't need 4 rows of seating in my car and I don't need video on my DSLR - why should I pay for those features that I don't need or want? Nikon's Df camera dropped video. It's 16mp. Pretty nice camera from what I hear. It's about $300 less than the D800. I don't think the video on the D800 is what is making it cost more.
In fact, prices on the cameras haven't gone up due to video inclusion. They are pretty much being sold at the same price as the previous generation was when video wasn't around. You're really not paying for it.
Nikon's have a multiple exposure setting...I don't use it. I don't know anyone that uses it, but Nikon keeps putting it in there.
Lots of people shoot RAW exclusively and do NOT use the camera manufacturer's software. Shouldn't they then make a camera without all that w/b and other setting nonsense. A camera that shoots RAW only. Set your exposure and be done with it. Maybe even get rid of the LCD and pretend you're shooting film? or is that going too far? 
Anyhow...you're not paying for video. You're paying what you'd have paid for anyhow. I currently can't shoot video. I'm not dying because of it. But I won't buy a camera without it.
Photographer
Gulag
Posts: 1253
Atlanta, Georgia, US
"When everything is easy one quickly gets stupid."
— Maxim Gorky
Photographer
Hijacked Productions
Posts: 79
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
3068875 wrote:
Photography: the downfall of Painting. Without photography no impressionism,modernism,cubism,abstract art, sur-realism etc.
Photographer
Stephoto Photography
Posts: 20158
Amherst, Massachusetts, US
The whole idea that digital killed photography drives me absolutely nutty. Digital cameras haven't killed photography, but I do admit that the opportunity for photography and photography work now takes more business smarts, whereas before there were only a select few in the field, so photography work probably just came rolling in.
I've said it to the face of complainers, and i'll say it again - the people who want to go with the lower cost, cheaper photographers aren't my client. They haven't ever been, and they never will be, and even if the cheaper photographers weren't there they probably wouldn't have hired me at my rates anyway- or any other photographer for that matter. I'm not going to waste my time on trying to convert someone to a customer that won't appreciate my work and the difference of a professional in the first place! So many get angry at the people who aren't their clients, they forget to service and take care of the people that are.
My clients are the smart businessmen (easier for me to work with men than women, so i'm just saying men) who know that hiring me will give their image, and businesses, a boost. The ones who are willing to invest, whether it's large or small, in getting the work done and both communicate and they need and respect what I do/stay out of my way. The ones i'm willing to work for a lower cost for when business is tough, and when we go back to my regular rates when business is good. The long term, business, friendly relationships i've grown to love so much from certain clients. I love them all, and the list grows every week! What I love best is, i'm not really in direct competition with any other photographers here, so i'm basically running free. Muahahaha!
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
Gulag wrote:
"When everything is easy one quickly gets stupid."
— Maxim Gorky
he just pissed he dont know how to use iphone camera
Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17397
Billings, Montana, US
The problem isn't photography. It's that the MARKET for professional photography is unregulated.
Let's compare with fast-food hamburgers...
You basically have McDonalds, Burger King, & Wendy's. That's it. And they serve a customer base of millions. In a town of 100,000... you might have 10-20 of these, duplicated, so 4 of each brand. That's a pretty decent living and profit margin for each brand, but...
the food industry is regulated. They must maintain health standards. And that means, that even though every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the planet knows how to cook a burger, THEY CAN'T ALL HAVE A RESTAURANT, and they probably wouldn't be allowed to set their BBQ grills on the corner indefinitely.
That means, the burger & fries industry is alive and well.
Photography is not. It's completely unregulated. A total newb could go out at lunchtime today, but a DSLR at BestBuy, and charge people for photos even if they'd never even picked up a camera before. The only requirement is that "mom thinks it's cute".
People have always done photography as a hobby. What has changed is the preponderance of people engaging in the MARKETING of photography with no pre-requisit, training (through time or formally), etc. And in this market ,complete shit sells just as easily (maybe moreso) then solidly good photography. Take Instagram, for instance. It's not great photography. It's mostly complete CRAP, disguised by a push-the-button redundant set of filters designed to degrade an already shitty photo even further... to the point that the lack of skill is wrapped in camo.
That's just the people industry, or... what's left of it. With a few players, they all could easily do revenue from $100-700K, or nowadays, a million people making 10K each. Awesomeness... and they all want to quit their "real" job so they can make 10K for a full time job, I guess... and they all come on MM trying to figure out how to grow that into some kind of job that will pay the bills. Not happening.
Then there is the magazine/newspaper side of it, where they are taking free submissions, which are about 5% of the quality that photojournalists shot, and then laying off their staff in favor of shitty photos that cut their budgets... which is just another race to the bottom of the toilet. Photojournalists are being told "why should we pay you $XYZ when that retard over there will give us the crappy version for free?" Without great photography, magazine and newspapers close. THAT's what creates "want". People aren't fooled with the current offering "great cover, shit and AD's inside". They stop buying and subscribing. What makes it vibrant isn't ordinary work... it's stunning work. And that isn't cheap.
And I won't even bother with lambasting the TF? thing... if you engage in that, then TF is your new pricing structure. You become known as the TF guy, but that very same customer who got your stuff for free... when they have a family... they won't come knocking on Mr TF's door... instead, they will save up several thousand $$ and pay whomever the most expensive guy in town is to shoot 3 shots of their family and sell them a LARGE print... why? Because you are just the TF guy. The other guy has made a name for himself as "the best in town". ...and you know why that is? Because all the rich folks in town go to him (or her...) You spent your time making connections with people with no money, and as they move forward, they forget who they usta know. That's life. They don't go back to the same used car lots either, or the same shitty restaurants.
So... photography is alive and well, and better then ever, with the best equipment you could ever want,
it's the business of photography that's in the shitter.
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4984
Escondido, California, US
I started photography LONG before digital cameras were even thought of. My digital camera, (1DsMkII), gave me so much better image quality than the scanned Provia 100f was giving me at that time, that I have become an advocate for digital technology. Of course, some want to remain in the stone age. If anyone has a problem with digital cameras, it is because of some problem they are having anyway. Digital caused no problems, the problems are/were, with the approach, and weaknesses of the individual.
I started out as an art a major, in college, digital technology has only added to my ability to create art.
-Don
Photographer
Jorge Kreimer
Posts: 3716
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
I took a photography course in college, 26 years ago. My memories of film are not fond memories. Ruining rolls in an effort to develop them, hours in the darkroom breathing chemicals, spotting, ugh.
Two and a half years ago, I picked up a digital camera, after not shooting since I was 20, and here I am
If it wasn't for digital, I wouldn't be shooting now. I love the simplicity of it.
Photographer
Mark Reeder
Posts: 627
Huntsville, Ontario, Canada
3068875 wrote:
Photography: the downfall of Painting. They are different things. Post modernism is the downfall of painting.
Photographer
tcphoto
Posts: 1031
Nashville, Tennessee, US
I started assisting back in '94, learned on set and paid my dues. Back then, you bought a basic camera kit and paid for film and processing. Digital made photography more accessible like the Brownie over a hundred years ago. The investment for digital is up front and the learning curve is much shorter than film. But that instant gratification cuts both ways because an AD can sniff out a slick salesman from a photographer if you're shooting tethered or hand them poorly exposed RAW files. I say bring the new photographers on, if you can't compete you might as well move on to something else. I hear that most DSLR's can capture video, I'm just saying.
Photographer
Jim McSmith
Posts: 794
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
I wouldn't call it so much the downfall of photography but the evolution and change of photography. It's different now. The goalposts have been moved big time. Yes any decision to make a business of photography has to be considered differently because there are a greater number of variables than there once were.
I grew up in the film days and studied at college using 5x4 inch film. But it was still very competitive even then because plenty of people wanted to work in an industry that appeared easy going compared with working hard doing routine work in a factory or office somewhere.
There is a tendency to look at the past through rose tinted spectacles. Photography has never been easy business wise. Now the market has become hyper competitive but then its only the lower to mid end bread and butter work that's really affected. The top end of the industry may be affected to some extent, such as the way the industry works now using a lot of Photoshop, but it's still pretty much an exclusive club because where serious money is concerned you need talented people and not just somebody that picked up a Nikon D800.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
The Grand Artist wrote:
I have seen this sentiment shared a few times in the forums by old photographers who are angry that digital made it easy for more people to get into photography and the photography business.
They hate Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and iPhones for making it easy for people to take pictures. They blame digital for the $50 head shot photographer and the $300 wedding shooter. Most importantly they blame digital for the increased competition for models to photograph their lifelong passion. Did I mention that they hate video on cameras today.
I often wonder how many people here didn't start in photography until digital. From what I can tell from a lot of the comments many didn't even start there until probably 2008 -2009 based on some of the comments I see about what gear real pros need.
Most of the interwebs spend energy and time encouraging people to pick up a camera and get out and shoot and some to get into the photography business, but it seems like there are some here that would prefer photography go back to the exclusive club it was 50 years ago and all these digital people go back to using Polaroids. If you're good at what you do, and there's an influx of people who aren't, it makes you look that much better.
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4984
Escondido, California, US
Vision Images by Jake wrote:
I don't think just the older crowd of photographers feel this way. It had definitely made the field crowded, No Doubt! Unfortunately, it may get a little worse before it get better. However, I saw it coming, but I did not think it would be this bad..... It is very saturated! There have always been lazy people, and, conversely, ones who are meticulous with their craft. The meticulous ones will prevail, the lazy ones will end up flipping burgers. Blaming today's equipment is just, plain stupid.
-Don
|
Aren't those the same old farts that adopted the technology that wrote all the books that I bought to learn this? 
