ograph. It thus loses uniqueness, scarcity and value. In, this, I suspect, leads us to ascribe less value to images and their quality.
The 'digitalization' has implications we never seem to consider, many of them great, but a lot of them not so great.
In a way we live in the future where cameras can produce processed images in microseconds, everyone is safe and secure knowing that the planned image is captured and everyone goes home happy about the day.
In other ways, we've fallen into more group think, because everyone can see every frame in micro detail and as a photographer it takes a strong personality to keep the vision intact.
When I started you worked with one AD, maybe the CD and formed this creative bond working in a singular direction, usually without a lot of client interference. Now every step is previewed and ok'd by everyone, sometimes all the way up to the CEO so staying with a clear clean singular vision is difficult.
The last year has seen a drastic cut in advertising production, both in available projects and pricing, though out the door pricing is hard to pin down because regardless of the deals you see floating around our industry, it's still an expensive world.
Cameras, computers, lights, rentals, hotels, airfare, per diems and catering haven't dropped that much, in fact airfare has increased, the newest professional cameras and lighting have increased and the advent of adding motion has increased the size of crews so costs and scope of production has gone up, not down.
We hear it all the time that quality has suffered but a lot of that is just romantic notions of the past. Commercial production is much more professional than ever, though if anything has changed it's the fact that a lot of the unexpected surprises have disappeared with digital, because everybody sees every frame just a few seconds from capture.
It funny we all complain that medium format cameras have less than detailed lcd's but sometimes it's a blessing because if you unplug from those two magliners and 30" screens you can show a client an image but it's just rough enough to be more like polaroid, less like real world micro check detail.
Maybe instead of asking for 4", 5", 6" lcd's it's better just to say this is it, don't worry, trust me.
We also complain that the medium format backs don't go to high iso, low light smooth, grain free images where we can see every stich, every eyelash, but with film we never had that and nobody lost their minds. If you shot film on a night time Paris street it was grainy, soft and actually beautiful and maybe that's what we keep missing that high iso imagery should be grainy, soft and beautiful.
Sometimes I think we have what we need and if I was a speciality camera maker, I'd sell the virtues of the "film" look of my cameras vs. the smooth, clean ultra micro, 3d detailed look that seems to dominate every "sales" conversation.
But as far as saying there is less quality, less experimentation, less beautiful imagery, that's far from the truth. There is more beautiful imagery today than anytime in the past.
A lot more.
BC
P.S. Just to add a lot of people, have preached the death of still photography, or even the need for beautiful imagery, but that is just a reflection of a very down and confused economy.
Things will return, products and services will be sold and nothing on a world wide scale sells like inspiring imagery.
Print or Web, Broadcast or PDA, crappy cheap imagery makes for a crappy cheap presentation and that has never sold anything worthwhile.
