Photography Tomorrow

[Rob C]

This should  be required reading for everybody with a camera.

Rob C

[VincentR]

It's an interesting read, but technologies are becoming accessible (read: price, availability, ease of use, etc.) so I'm not convinced about the pendulum part. Sure, there's a romantic aspect of using analog technologies, but how many millennials, and following generations, will really be interested in going back in time? Darkroom anyone? Yeah, didn't think so.

[GrahamBy]

It has a few incoherencies. We read:

"Ultimately, it has to be monetized. Either that or only independently wealthy trust fund types will be photographers. And it won’t be a profession either. It will be a hobby, avocation, or interest, but not a living."

Then we get a comment on Banksy, who is probably the most famous living conceptual artist, and has basically... avoided monetarisation of his work by painting them in public places, on material that is not easily transported into a gallery.

So, having denigrated non-professional photography (lots of us have day jobs and make photos without a trust-fund), he then talks about the up-coming boom in film among.... non-commercial photographers. So I presume he means photographers whose work will be monetized in other ways. It's possibly true, since the art world is basically about selling meaningless trends, but I suspect more money will be made selling repro Hasselblads to trust-fund kids than by people making aesthetically motivated images on film.

I see the parallel with analogue sound, where there is a relative boom in vinyl and pre-transistor amplifiers and other methods of creating cozy distortions, which sell well to young men with fashionable beards. Otoh, the information theory suggests you might be better recording digitally, then adding the desirable distortions later. That way you can always undo and redo. So shoot it on your D810 or 5Dsr, print it out on inkjet, then re-photograph it on a copy standard with your Pentacon-6 and Tri-X...

Of course the author implicity suggests that the current economic systemic will continue calmly along for the next 25 years. Ten years ago I would have agreed... now I'm not at all sure: it may be that shooting old Tri-X and developing it in coffee and vinegar is all we'll be able to preserve from the rubble.

[Jim Pascoe]

I'm a bit mystified that freelancers will be out of business and corporations will have their own in-house staff to do the photography etc.  Was that not the case in the 1950's - 1990's?  I thought most big organisations had their own staff photographers.  Then, in the past twenty years they have gradually sacked them and closed their darkrooms to outsource all the photography.  Bringing it in house just sounds like going back in time.  And probably quite sensible.

The vast majority of commercial businesses that hire me would not have the volume of work or resources to employ full-time media people.

Jim

[Rob C]

I don't quite see it in the same way.

I started my career as an in-house unit photographer and it was a wonderful break (in retrospect) because as a service to the huge company (jet engines) the only criterion was quality. So, both b/white and colour were done to the nth degree of possibility. I learned a lot, including the fact that outside commercial labs couldn't afford to do that: too many tests and they were losing money, so half-baked colour was the best one got back from them. And only if one was aware of what a small change in filtration pack could have given was one able to know that the print wasn't as good as it gets.

I think that several years after I left, the printing part of the unit was closed, and the work farmed out to secure labs. It may have been the entire unit, snappers too, but I'm not sure. Newspapers have done the same. But, with digital, reporters can easily learn enough to make acceptable work - if estate agents can, why not? - and that's all that's required. But hey, they probably get more than enough stuff sent in every day courtesy Joe Public!

The way I read the article is that film could become (probably still is?) de rigueur for the upper end of the art world. And I think traditional, non-digital prints always command a premium.

Regarding the amateur side of it, I don't think the author's unduly concerned with that aspect. Film or digi, there were always amateurs, and they didn't make much impact on anything but the bottom line that permitted the R&D to provide the top echelon devices.

I think it quite possible (even sensible) for makers to revert to manufacturing something, now basic, like a 500 Series 'blad for the professional 'artists' and a narrow, medium-range digital series, with one great top-gun variant. The validity of the current race to higher this, that and the other for everyman has been fucked by the democratic cellphone. In the end, whether somebody can count the gnats on the tail feathers of a heron is gonna be neither much here not there! If you can see the feathers, that should be enough for any sane person. Probably good enough for a heron with the hots, too! Folks shouldn't forget that amazing photography was done with film... it's nobody's poor relation; it's just more demanding.

I think it's wrong to draw parallels with music or anything else. Photography is something very different. It appeals to a different set of head cells, and whilst many may be blessed with both, that's as far as it goes. And even amongst photographers, the heads are different, very different. I have mentioned before that had digital been the only photography, I'm fairly convinced that I would never have felt the unavoidable attraction that I found in film. Film felt visceral, digital not in the least. I do it because I can no longer access all I require for film and because it's cheap enough for a pensioner of finite means to keep doing - when he does, which is becoming less certain or often as time goes by. Equipment is never enough of itself; one needs motivation. That becomes difficult if one wants to avoid repetition. On the other hand, some obviously thrive on repetition.

I do believe that, gear-freaks apart, the real world has had enough of being suckered by tiny incremental increases in these products' qualities. I think that the grim sales figures touted across this site sort of indicate a turning point has been reached, and maybe it's hit Nikon first, but I don't think it'll stop there. I may be mistaken, but I don't seem to think that, pre-digital days, camera sales were as high as they became with digtal, so perhaps a film-style sales level is more realistic and ultimately sustainable.

For sure, photography has lost its one-time star status accorded the local hero. Everybody is a hero now, a cellphone warrior of the ether. What colour was your lettuce today?

Rob

[GrahamBy]

I think Streichen is one example of an amature photographer who made an impact, although he probably wasn't keen to call himself that: he was a trust-fund kid before his time. Which looking at the history of art, was not an uncommon situation. Not too many made money from art, they either started off rich, or ended poor and dead at an early age. The same used to be true for musicians and athletes, until they too were "monetized".

Photography from the 50's through to... the 90's ? hit a golden patch where there was a demand given the state of image transmission of the time and the level of technical difficulty making it accessible, but not too accessible. That appears to be over, and I think many of the prognostications are spot on:

-Sport (and animal) photography will remain viable because of the technical skills of swinging a 600/f4, the cost of the gear and the controlled access.
-News photography will be part of the brief of the journalists, such as they become, whereas disasters and other unanticipated events will be covered by crowd-sourcing.
-Weddings will continue to be viable because you need someone to stay sober and carry the responsibility of not screwing up.

Otherwise, photography that doesn't involve vaguely pointing a camera equipped with face recognition AF will become a leisure activity like painting or sculpture: a democratic form of art that is rewarding for the artist in the doing, but not of interest to the art business. Unfortunately, art history is largely and almost unavoidably the history of the art business, so no one will care about the "legacies" of 99.9% of potentially excellent photographers.

I defend the parallel with music, not just because of the evolution towards nostalgic gear (I read an interview with Brian Eno in which he was asked if he "stiil listened to CD's" and he was almost embarrassed to admit that he didn't prefer vinyl), but also because the days when a moderately successful band could make money from performing and releasing records have pretty much passed away: today you give it away, or you are ignored, or you were already famous in the 90's.

[Rob C]

I think Streichen is one example of an amature photographer who made an impact, although he probably wasn't keen to call himself that: he was a trust-fund kid before his time. Which looking at the history of art, was not an uncommon situation. Not too many made money from art, they either started off rich, or ended poor and dead at an early age. The same used to be true for musicians and athletes, until they too were "monetized".

Photography from the 50's through to... the 90's ? hit a golden patch where there was a demand given the state of image transmission of the time and the level of technical difficulty making it accessible, but not too accessible. That appears to be over, and I think many of the prognostications are spot on:

-Sport (and animal) photography will remain viable because of the technical skills of swinging a 600/f4, the cost of the gear and the controlled access.
-News photography will be part of the brief of the journalists, such as they become, whereas disasters and other unanticipated events will be covered by crowd-sourcing.
-Weddings will continue to be viable because you need someone to stay sober and carry the responsibility of not screwing up.

Otherwise, photography that doesn't involve vaguely pointing a camera equipped with face recognition AF will become a leisure activity like painting or sculpture: a democratic form of art that is rewarding for the artist in the doing, but not of interest to the art business. Unfortunately, art history is largely and almost unavoidably the history of the art business, so no one will care about the "legacies" of 99.9% of potentially excellent photographers.

I defend the parallel with music, not just because of the evolution towards nostalgic gear (I read an interview with Brian Eno in which he was asked if he "stiil listened to CD's" and he was almost embarrassed to admit that he didn't prefer vinyl), but also because the days when a moderately successful band could make money from performing and releasing records have pretty much passed away: today you give it away, or you are ignored, or you were already famous in the 90's.

Realistically, it's probably true to say that for most pro-snap folks, the jigg's pretty much up! Ah, the golden two or three percent left!

As true, and speaking strictly for myself, about ninety percent of available pro photography held no interest for me at all. Had I not cracked the gig I wanted, I would have given up the lot and got rid of all the gear for what it would fetch. I could have gone into real estate with my surveyor bro'n'lo and got rich, too. Who says art claims no price? Memories are pretty damned expensive too, even if somebody else was paying for them at the time.

;-(

Rob

[Peter McLennan]

For sure, photography has lost its one-time star status accorded the local hero. Everybody is a hero now, a cellphone warrior of the ether.

Both good news and bad, I guess.  Good news for the legions of people whose phones have introduced them to the joys of photography.  Bad news for those who have had the rug ripped out from under them.  Cinematographers, for example, used to hold the keys to the kingdom.  Now, they're just another crew member.

The comparisons to music are apt.  Once an art by and for the elite, music is now a service.

[Rob C]

Both good news and bad, I guess.  Good news for the legions of people whose phones have introduced them to the joys of photography.  Bad news for those who have had the rug ripped out from under them.  Cinematographers, for example, used to hold the keys to the kingdom.  Now, they're just another crew member.

The comparisons to music are apt.  Once an art by and for the elite, music is now a service.

Really?

When did music get easy like a cellphone? I had a guitar from the age of eleven until I sold it in my very late teens. I never could tune the mother. How/where do I suddenly find the ability and download to play when I can't?

As for being an art for the elite - were that so there'd never have been a jazz/pop/rock/c&w industry at all. Hell's teeth, it was slaves wot started jazz, and poor miners in the mountains that fiddled and/or sang their way into fortune and fame. Even one of their daughters managed that.

Rob

[adias]

This was funny:

"... “Private aviation,” he [Alex MacLean] commented, “may become a thing of the past due to global warming.” Carbon emissions in the upper atmosphere are a major problem and electric planes don’t seem to be a viable alternative anytime soon. ..."

Will the Sierra Club brass stop flying their Lears/Gulfstreams on their enviro jaunts? I think not, 'cause they are above the fray, right? As Sexton says, the pendulum will swing back, and private aviation will be safe; thank God!

[Peter McLennan]

Really?

When did music get easy like a cellphone? I had a guitar from the age of eleven until I sold it in my very late teens. I never could tune the mother. How/where do I suddenly find the ability and download to play when I can't?

I was referring to Spotify  and Apple Music and the like. It's no longer necessary to own/store/curate any recorded music.  My wife just says to her iPad, "Play me Cosi Fan Tutti" and out it comes, through the stereo.

As for being an art for the elite - were that so there'd never have been a jazz/pop/rock/c&w industry at all. Hell's teeth, it was slaves wot started jazz, and poor miners in the mountains that fiddled and/or sang their way into fortune and fame. Even one of their daughters managed that.
Rob

Poorly worded by me. Sorry.  I meant that only the rich could afford recorded music or to employ live musicians.  You're absolutely right about jazz, etc. I was visualizing the courts of Europe.

I encourage you to try guitar again.  They are great companions.

[Rob C]

I was referring to Spotify  and Apple Music and the like. It's no longer necessary to own/store/curate any recorded music.  My wife just says to her iPad, "Play me Cosi Fan Tutti" and out it comes, through the stereo.

Poorly worded by me. Sorry.  I meant that only the rich could afford recorded music or to employ live musicians.  You're absolutely right about jazz, etc. I was visualizing the courts of Europe.

I encourage you to try guitar again.  They are great companions.

Don't I know it! I looked after mine all those years, poured love at it, but still it turned its back!

A companion like that reminds me of this:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+win+again+hankwilliams&view=detail&mid=EB258F9219B4123D9564EB258F9219B4123D9564&FORM=VIRE

;-)

Rob

[jjb49]

As a film photographer for the past 55 years, I agree that film has seen a certain resurgence in the past few years. New film stocks are being created (KODAK Alaris bringing back Ektachrome this Fall). However, from the film sites I visit it is clear that a lot of this resurgence is by the older generation like myself. The key to film remaining viable will be the education of a new generation of young people, if we can get them to put down their cell phones. As far as photography 25 years from now, and the future of photography is concerned the answer is one word. VIDEO. I am surprised this did not come up. Still cameras and still photography will be a thing of the past. Already many newspapers (those that have not laid off their photographers) have given their photographers video cameras (Dallas Morning News was the first around 8 years ago). The key is frame grabs. With the advancement in software algorithms individual frame grabs can be extracted and plopped on the front page. The newspaper gets a video, with sound, for their website, and a still image for their paper. The quality is getting better all the time. Sports photographers will be dropping their extremely heavy slr gear for smaller, lighter video cameras. They can capture the action at extremely fast frame rates, go to the editing software and capture that perfect "decisive moment" of the winning touchdown pass. Wedding photography will be all video.The bride and groom will get a video of their wedding and an album of 8X10 frame grab prints of equal quality to the "pro" dslr. Canon already has a video you can check out regarding one of their video cameras.  The new mirrorless cameras are being touted for their 4k video ability, not their stills ability. Ironically, this will do in mirrorless as we know it, as photographers get tired of the 30 minute limitation, and will simply switch to video cameras. Anyway, that's my take, from an old analog photgapher, on the future of photography. It's video.

[GrahamBy]

the future of photography. It's video.

Maybe, until the market rejects it. Le Monde often does little videos on an issue where rather than writing a page of clear text, the journalist is interviewed by a colleague. It strikes me as lazy journalism: it takes me longer to get less info which is less carefully structured. I hate it, and no longer watch them.

The same struck me long ago with reguard to tourist videos: if someone shows me a stack of photos from their trip, I can leaf through and dwell on the interesting ones. With video, I have to go through in real time. It's rare that an amateur video-maker has Coen brothers level editing skills to pace the narrative, and in any case, I may not have 30 mins to dedicate to watching someone's trip to London. Or their wedding, in fact 

[bcooter]

Wow.

Lot of negative here lately, but that seems to run the course on many threads.  If it ain't talking about bad boy trump, or brexit exit,  then it's screaming about mobile phones.  There is always something to complain about, but the upside is there is always something to construct that somebody hasn't thought of yet.

Photography as a profession, now it's image making and it requires lights, grip, reflectors, usually some form of crew, subjects. computers, software, cameras in multiple sizes and use along with the ability to shoot motion.

And it has to be special.

And if you can't shoot motion, then you're leaving a lot of money on the table and a small video camera doesn't cut it.  Tell yourself it does, but it doesn't.  There is a reason Arri and RED charge more than an M3 BMW and there is a difference.

In other words it's more than a camera, lens and an lcd to stare at until you get it right, but you will do your client's a favor if you use professional cameras, still and motion and know why.

Today you have to be more complete than ever before, work harder than before, invest more than before.

It's a different world and some clients that use to do great campaigns that now shoot on white with a beauty ish and strip the background in aren't worth talking about, but he good clients, the one's that are moving ahead use high professional talent, creative thought and production values to set their brands and services apart.

The only issue is finding them or better put finding the actual person that buys, but all of that is possible, it just takes work, but this biz has always taken a lot of work.

Did it use to be easier in the good ol' days?   Doubt it, it was just different and trust fund babies can't rule the world, because first it takes a lot of work and  no matter how good your crew is, somebody has to be in control and know how to direct.

I know, I hire them and in 2 years they're off to dad's shop selling bonds.

We shoot with great crew, sometimes not so great, but nothing suffers, cause we know what we're doing.  We did a gig a year ago and not one crew member knew any piece of equipment we used but a tripod and I told them just put all the cases in the location hallway, open them and I'll tell them when to bring it in.



So is photography for commerce dead because zeiss makes lenses for a phone? . . . No . . . It's just that Ziess is tapped into an area to make money, nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't cut it for most work.

The world hasn't ended, the photo for money biz hasn't ended, you just have to be good at it and offer more than somebody with a Sony mirror thing and twenty sd cards, 49 batteries.

That's not the end of the world, but Rob C. will make you think it is.

I love Rob but let's face it, he aint' shooting for money and kind of get's off track in that negative thing because he's still dreaming of kodachrome and girls showing one boob.  He tapped into a good gig, but that gig is over for money.

Kodachrome is dead, but no big deal, cause that film went to shit a long time before Kodak pulled the plug.

Today to be good, you better get smart, know how do more than ever and stop wishing for things to be the were when they never were anyway.

IMO

BC

[Rob C]

That's not the end of the world, but Rob C. will make you think it is.

I love Rob but let's face it, he aint' shooting for money and kind of get's off track in that negative thing because he's still dreaming of kodachrome and girls showing one boob.  He tapped into a good gig, but that gig is over for money.

IMO

BC

Whoah, Trigger! I didn't write the original - it's by Richard Sexton.

However, I think he's right in a lot of what he imagines may happen in the future, and importantly from the perspective of this thread, he and I seem to agree that an elite set of snappers will continue to make a very good business out of it. Neither of us is saying the business will end abruptly, just that the lower- and middle-class operations will vanish. And no bad thing: I feel that many have been so poor at their job that the public deserves salvation!

Somebody else thinks that it will all become video. I think that's going to be blindingly obvious quite soon in a lot of professional application, if it's not already arrived. Of course, that's all going to demand new skills...

The problem then becomes, who's going to be within that little group of survivors?

;-)

Rob

[nrantoul]

What a simply wonderful article. Informal  and anecdotal but informed by a career's work of experience. I too have been in photography for a long time but feel like I've learned from this and it provokes thoughts that there are inherent in our medium's future great opportunities. Many thanks.

[bcooter]

Rob my friend and I mean this in a good way.

I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was just pointing out that what I did 10 years ago is about 120 degrees different in what we do today and what is expected.

Today the requests we get are beyond anything I thought possible and the difference is like driving a beautiful, all manual/analog Grand Prix car to flying an F14.

We changed our business model and produce more in a day than we use to produce in 4.

Some of it I miss, some I don't, though image creation for commerce comes with huge demands and keeping up (for us) is the only way to move forward.

I have friends that tell me they'd never shoot motion though a few have made that work for them and I respect that they can do it.

For us we've added to our repertoire, equipment, even the size of studios or locations and I'm proud that we could make the transition.   

I read the article, agree with some, some I don't but I do know this, the more you learn, the more you work.

But Rob . . . you should be proud, because your not only talented, you carved out a niche that few people can and trust me a lot have tried.

In fact nearly everything you show I find compelling, so maybe I replied a little harsh because the article kind of struck a nerve.

I love making imagery and like many here have dedicated most of my waking moments working to it and I promise you, if I had a nickle for everytime somebody said it can't be done I'd be at the Bentley dealer asking if the Mulsanne is prettier than the Continental GT. 

I may not be in Tarantino's league, but I've found our niche.

So sorry if I came across harsh, because that wasn't the plan, due to the respect I have for you and your body of work.

Now would I go back to stills only.  Nope because I truly love shooting and directing motion projects, the involvement, the story.   I've been told you can't direct from behind the camera, but as a still photographer, I've directed from behind the lens so that part comes natural.

Once again, with respect.

BC

[Rob C]

Rob my friend and I mean this in a good way.

I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was just pointing out that what I did 10 years ago is about 120 degrees different in what we do today and what is expected.

Today the requests we get are beyond anything I thought possible and the difference is like driving a beautiful, all manual/analog Grand Prix car to flying an F14.

We changed our business model and produce more in a day than we use to produce in 4.

Some of it I miss, some I don't, though image creation for commerce comes with huge demands and keeping up (for us) is the only way to move forward.

I have friends that tell me they'd never shoot motion though a few have made that work for them and I respect that they can do it.

For us we've added to our repertoire, equipment, even the size of studios or locations and I'm proud that we could make the transition.   

I read the article, agree with some, some I don't but I do know this, the more you learn, the more you work.

But Rob . . . you should be proud, because your not only talented, you carved out a niche that few people can and trust me a lot have tried.

In fact nearly everything you show I find compelling, so maybe I replied a little harsh because the article kind of struck a nerve.

I love making imagery and like many here have dedicated most of my waking moments working to it and I promise you, if I had a nickle for everytime somebody said it can't be done I'd be at the Bentley dealer asking if the Mulsanne is prettier than the Continental GT. 

I may not be in Tarantino's league, but I've found our niche.

So sorry if I came across harsh, because that wasn't the plan, due to the respect I have for you and your body of work.

Now would I go back to stills only.  Nope because I truly love shooting and directing motion projects, the involvement, the story.   I've been told you can't direct from behind the camera, but as a still photographer, I've directed from behind the lens so that part comes natural.

Once again, with respect.

BC

Hey, BC!

Relax, I didn't take any offence - just thought you'd confused me with the author of the article!

But anyway, you are not far off the mark: I do find myself getting a bit blue now and then, and it's almost always when I feel I've run out of enthusiasm or direction. (I don't really know which comes first.) In fact, I haven't shot anything for myself for at least three or four weeks - which feels forever. What I did shoot, yesterday, is a pile of rubbish: literally. The current community gardeners are useless, and never clear the space at the bottom of the hedges, resulting in the plants being strangled by creepers and weeds, and they die; so far, about twenty percent of the lot. We have many, many yards of hedge... As Ann and I were instrumental in having them planted about 35 years ago, I take it personally!

I decided to take matters into my own hands, and spent a day or two (when the areas are in shade!) ripping and raking out what I could of the mess. I have piled it all up in one gigantic heap, and that's what I photographed for the next AGM in April. We need a new gardener, and few of the other owners ever see or say or care about anything because most of them only come out for holidays, and all they think of is getting the sun. I hope I've now built a body of evidence for making a change and employing another company...

I had the amusing thought that, after two heart attacks, I'm not really the guy to be doing this shit, but then I had a laugh and thought that if it killed me, there would be hell to pay when they found this old bugger on his own funeral pyre! (Unlit.)

But hey, thank you for the very kind remarks you have made, and not just today, about my work. It means a lot to me coming from you. As you know, the respect is very much reciprocated.

Ciao -

Rob

[EvanBedford]

I'm just an amateur with a serious GAS thing going (a lot of packages from Japan have been coming my way in recent years).  And I'll never totally give up digital (sorry, I did last year, but it was just a phase). But there's just something magic about a great 6x6 chrome in a Gepe holder.  And there's also something magic about the mere knowledge that there's this analog..."stuff" with sprocket holes in it going through my Konica RF/F3/Genba Kantoku/etc that will have a chance of immortality that all of my one's and zero's won't have. Maybe when I'm close to dust, that "stuff" will have a similar importance in my life to those crappy old slides that my father shot in the 1960's of us kids being kids (and which still occasionally slide across my computer screen courtesy of a cheap Epson scanner).

Hopefully, I'm not alone.

Sorry, I just scanned the article.  I'll fully digest it tomorrow...unless some distraction slays me.