Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: KevinA on March 14, 2014, 03:00:09 pm
-
Well I for one are making plans to get out of it. I'm still doing ok on stock sales but hey nothing lasts forever.
I've stated before in the future I believe the only people that will be recognised as photographers will be ones shooting a wet process.
Not saying they will be making a living out of it. There will still be people shooting digital stills but honestly they will need to be doing more than that, I doubt they will be called "Photographer".
If anything is killing the industry the most I think it's from the hobby end. I just don't see the enthusiasm to get involved in it as a hobby. The requests for new features and abilities on cameras is all to make thinking and effort less, of course it must fit in the shirt pocket and have a walk about lens.
I find that odd as something you call a hobby, no one goes sailing at weekends wishing they had a motor. No one climbs a mountain wishing they had driven up the road instead. So where is the hobby factor? Is it shooting a thousand images to sit in front of a computer to find the good one? I remember years before digital various cameras being referred to as Male jewellery. Well I think it's at it's peak now, the masses will move onto other adornments.
The upsurge in photography as a hobby since digital is not because it's within the reach of more people, it's because it's within the reach of more people that don't see you need to make an effort to "take a good photo". There was a lot to learn when you needed to know why you would choose a certain film etc. You learnt, it cost money and you kept on learning, you couldn't do it if you didn't
I suspect lots of the new world enthusiasts have found you don't need to make an effort with your phone either.
-
Kevin,
For me that is an incredibly axiomatic post. Were it not so wordy I'd crochet it into my pillow slip.
-
Guys, get real will you. The world moves on, what do you want, great advances in everything but image capture? It's happened, we all hate it but life is not some Disney time capsule. If you think the work of the 'hobbyist' is crap go convince your clients and potential clients, there's enough whinging here already.
Sorry for being so blunt but navel gazing and muttering into our tea cups may bring some sort of morbid satisfaction but does little to take the craft forward, and anyway, it never really paid a lot photographers that much in the past.
-
Get an 8x10 and try some "Impossible Project" polaroids.
Then come back to this thread.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Kevin,
Yes, you're on the money there with the take on 'hobby'. I think, too, that hobby now and hobby then probably attracts much the same percentage of the populace, but that many more people not really interested in hobby climbed aboard because as you say, it was imagined easier to get from A to B on a computer. Also, as happened to fashion photography post-Blow Up, many guys took to it for the wrong reasons. That they were ultimately disappointed and got out did nothing to limit their damage to the business, where prices were run down quite severely, and that when there were still lots of outlets. The parallel with stock's demise because of digital is very clear if you search for it with even a cursory glance: too many bit-players with no commitment for the long haul. Ditto the bloody 'agents' that bought their way into stock, only to give away the family jewels on little plastic discs.
With luck, the dust will settle, the companies who played with photography will get out again, leaving the business to those for whom it represented a great part of their turnover. In that way, if only because of less funny money with which to gamble, pointless new releases will vanish and the gentle, useful pace of model replacement will again become the norm. I hope. But having said that, as for photographers, will there be much left for those camera and lens firms whose first interest was photography products? Will any even survive?
Rob C
-
"I've stated before in the future I believe the only people that will be recognised as photographers will be ones shooting a wet process. "
This is a minority opinion, and to my mind a rather foolish one. Photography is photography, and the tools and processes used to create an image are a matter of time, place and technology.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Michael
-
+1
-
"I've stated before in the future I believe the only people that will be recognised as photographers will be ones shooting a wet process. "
This is a minority opinion, and to my mind a rather foolish one. Photography is photography, and the tools and processes used to create an image are a matter of time, place and technology.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Michael
Taking drawing courses also helps ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
"I've stated before in the future I believe the only people that will be recognised as photographers will be ones shooting a wet process. "
This is a minority opinion, and to my mind a rather foolish one. Photography is photography, and the tools and processes used to create an image are a matter of time, place and technology.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Michael
I'm not so sure, Michael. I think that one result of the digital revolution will be exactly that: photography in the traditional manner, i.e. non-digital, will become the gold standard of the photography business insofar as art photography goes. I do think that the concept of art photography is now mature enough that the higher values will be confined increasingly towards the wet pix than not, if only because they will become progressively more rare and, by definition, collectible.
Anyway, I have one old 10"x12" 70s print on the bedside table - a TXP 120 from the 'blad with 150mm, of my two kids, just shot off the cuff, against the light and probably not even metered, because I wanted to finish a film from a job and get it into the tank. Printed on Kodak WSG 2D or 3D, it's one of the best prints I've got today. Glazed, behind glass, it hasn't even started to fade or yellow. The tones are fantastic to my eye. I do have an HP B9180 and yes, true, it prints black/white rather well, and I have many prints; but none matches the tonality I always expected from Kodak or Ilford. I can quite see why collectors might prefer wet print products than digital, even if they are not quite sure what makes the differences.
Rob C
-
Right on, Michael, as usual. I appreciate your frankness, your clarity, your experience, your opinion. Oh, and by the way....you are a damned fine photographer. Cheers, sir. Keep 'em rolling.
-
Michael seems to be taking part in the forum more lately. I'm not sure I like it. :)
Here we are happily disagreeing and then it's like having a deus ex machina.
Back to the topic. There has been a lot of energy expended over the last few years over the so-called decline brought about by digital. Heavens above and earth beneath, have these folks never been to local art exhibitions? There has always been a huge amount of painting and drawing that is "not very good" to be polite. All the artists I know are quite okay with that, and are happy that folks get involved.
When mass produced dry plates became available in 1879 photography became something people could do without years of training. A typical response was from Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll), one of the best wet plate portrait photographers of the era. His only remark was “Here comes the rabble”. He stopped taking photographs entirely a year later. He was undoubtedly right but that's another matter...
Rob, I think most of us are imprinted (pun intended) with the aesthetic from the time when we were most impressionable. That maybe when we were children or when we first took photography seriously. Your old 10" x 12" undoubtedly is a fine image but may fall into that category. For me it's that work from the early 1900's. When I first saw the work of Ponting and Hurley I was bowled over. I realise it possibly comes from being bed-ridden as a child every winter and having Arthur Mee's encyclopaedia as a companion. All those amazing images and none made later than about 1900.
Well if collectors come to prefer wet print products rest assured it will be for their value as collectable things and not for reasons of taste.
David
-
Michael seems to be taking part in the forum more lately. I'm not sure I like it. :)
I like it.
Sort of a proof it he's still human ;)
Cheers
~Chris
-
Maybe its time to slay the holy cow of collectibility.
In the time of incredible reproduction possibilities a photography no longer defines a significant part of its value by the media it was produced on.
Exception is the dwindling and on a low level constant market of wet prints.
The physical craftmanship necessary to produce a great wet print is replaced by other parts of the craft:
Postproduction, judgement and depth.
Being so this means that cheap effect seeking, cheap plugin and digital filter abuse will be recognized
by the maturing audience of the digital age more and more
and thus husk and wheat will get separated.
Knowing the digital tools, judgement and good taste as well as the ability to say something significant with the images one produces will be of even more importance than it was in the old days.
In the old days knowing photographic technique very well and using good (often expensive) tools, like large format or medium format cameras was a separator.
Today this has become a convenience - the focus is more on the content itself and the bar is raised.
We are drowning in visual clutter - so people will learn to distinguish.
my € 0.02
Cheers
~Chris
-
... I think that one result of the digital revolution will be exactly that: photography in the traditional manner, i.e. non-digital, will become the gold standard of the photography business insofar as art photography goes.
"Since about 1975, a high-dollar market for photographs has existed. In it, the rules of the old market for works of art apply: color sells for more than black and white; larger costs more than smaller; rarer brings a better price. So talented photographers began to work in color, make large prints, and print in limited, numbered editions. ... Another rule of the market is that price at auction determines importance -- what we see in museums and handsomely produced catalogs today, and what important critics will write about and students of art history will study tomorrow. Today, we believe that the best artists get the highest prices."
p23-24 "Why Photography Matters (http://books.google.com/books?id=MTyTAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=why%20photography%20matters&pg=PP1#v=snippet&q=Since%20about%201975,%20a%20high-dollar%20market%20for%20photographs%20has%20existed.&f=false)"
-
So where is the hobby factor? Is it shooting a thousand images to sit in front of a computer to find the good one?
There are people who collect stamps as a hobby.
-
With the right mindset you can actually shoot just few images even with a digital camera ...
-
I suspect that the camera industry is in the dumper due to poor business and marketing models fuelled by high octane hubris on the part of the manufacturing "establishment" which blinded them to the reality of the marketplace and the proliferation of new players entering and taking commanding positions in the business.
-
It's worth pointing out that 'hobbyists' would not be providing images if there were not a demand for their output. Why pour vitriol upon them when they are only serving a gap in the market? Pros have to show that they have something better to offer, more attractive, more effective, more commercial, that's how a free market works we are continuously reminded and I speak as a bit of unrepentant old lefty generally, so let's go and do it.
-
"I've stated before in the future I believe the only people that will be recognised as photographers will be ones shooting a wet process. "
This is a minority opinion, and to my mind a rather foolish one. Photography is photography, and the tools and processes used to create an image are a matter of time, place and technology.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Michael
Michael
I believe the term photographer will change it's meaning. The job of "Photographer" will no longer exist, there will be no market for someone that only takes 2d still images. The lines will become blurred between, still 2d, moving, 3D, hologram and whatever else the future holds. The term Photographer will be describing something more niche, like the job of a cobbler or candlestick maker, once common and considered necessary . The modern view will be more like "digital artist", 2d static images will not be enough. 4k camera phones, tablets and software will move the masses away from the photograph as we know it. And it will all be achievable at the click of a button or selection of a menu, no thought needed.
What we have right now is quantity cheaply and so less value. Getty and Facebook prove that, Getty will be consuming the Lions share of advertising revenue and throwing crumbs to the image makers.
The only way not to get ripped off is to have a product that can not be duplicated 10 or 1000,000 times at the click of a mouse, that's why I say in the future the only ones left called a photographer will be the ones hand crafting their still image. The more digital moves on, the bigger difference there will be in look between handcrafted and computer mass produced.
A digital camera that only does flat still images will be like owning an 8 track car hi-fi, the masses will move on, mainly because they are told they should. "Photographer" will be mentioned like Fletcher, Cooper or Lace maker, only a dedicated few left practicing the craft. We are not at the pinnacle of photography just because there are more cameras around that work easier than they did 40 years ago.
The equipment is not a measure of the state of photography, it's standing amongst the public is a better barometer.
I bet in the 60's the average person could probably name two or three well known photographers. I doubt most now could name one photographer, if they did it would probably be Annie or Bailey, no one contemporary. The golden age has gone, the respect has gone a digital photograph can be had for less than the price of the plastic bag you carry your shopping home from the super market in. That's how it's valued today, not because you can fit a camera in a shirt pocket that shoots 20fps in the dark.
-
There are two ways you can look at the situation. You can hold yourself aloof from 'the rabble' and declare to an ever emptier room that you are simply so much better that you deserve protection from the hoi polloi and a guaranteed living or you can get down amongst them and prove your worth in creating more saleable images. True, with stock the sheer number of people you are up against may prove too much of a tide to swim against and so other avenues need to be explored. That's very easy to say I know, but if I am not as pessimistic as I once was about professional photography for I rather feel that the penny is dropping with a growing number of people that good photos do not automatically come in the box with an expensive camera, for they have tried that and it doesn't work.
-
It's worth pointing out that 'hobbyists' would not be providing images if there were not a demand for their output. Why pour vitriol upon them when they are only serving a gap in the market? Pros have to show that they have something better to offer, more attractive, more effective, more commercial, that's how a free market works we are continuously reminded and I speak as a bit of unrepentant old lefty generally, so let's go and do it.
I'm not saying hobbyist should not turn a penny, I question the commitment to it being a hobby. It's always been possible for anyone to submit to an agency. The reason so many do now is because it's cheap and easy.
The goal all the time is for it to be easier and less involving, higher iso, more fps more more more. That to me that is the opposite of what you would want out of a hobby isn't it?
Someone mentioned stamp collecting, I would think to be a successful stamp collector requires a lot of input, time and dedication. Gaining the knowledge is part of the hobby. If photography is a hobby why would you not want to explore it, why would you not want to see what hand printing an image feels like? getting involved with the process.
Just hitting a button on your handheld computer and viewing on a computer screen, or maybe knocking out a print on the Epson at a flick of the fingertip must lose the fascination at some point. you might as well say texting is a hobby. There is little core of dedicated hobby photographers to support a mass global camera industry investing in r&d for the next improvement. Sure there are the dedicated, I doubt enough to support the industry anything like it is now. The dedication of the masses that call photography a hobby will swerve when the next gizmo becomes a hobby. When having the latest greatest camera no longer impresses other people, when a dedicated picture taking camera is not so cool, it will no longer be their hobby.
-
Kevin,
For me that is an incredibly axiomatic post. Were it not so wordy I'd crochet it into my pillow slip.
Walter,
I had to look up the meaning of axiomatic, still little idea as to how you used it. Either confirming it or questioning it, I can't hear the tone of voice you typed it in. Anyway cross stitch might be easier. :-)
-
The upsurge in photography as a hobby since digital is not because it's within the reach of more people, it's because it's within the reach of more people that don't see you need to make an effort to "take a good photo". There was a lot to learn when you needed to know why you would choose a certain film etc. You learnt, it cost money and you kept on learning, you couldn't do it if you didn't
I suspect lots of the new world enthusiasts have found you don't need to make an effort with your phone either.
I've mentioned this as being an issue in many areas since digital arrived. Barriers to entry are to my mind a good thing at times, because it weeds out the lazy dossers. Plus it also gives people an appreciation for those who have taken time to master things, as that part is still tricky. Now people value very few things as they assume the computer did it.
-
Kevin,
I meant it in the sense that your statement was a fundamental truth in my eyes.
axiom |ˈaksēəm|
noun
a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true : the axiom that supply equals demand.
• chiefly Mathematics a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Cheers mate,
W
-
It would be amusing were it not so sad. The suggestion is made that rather than complain, folks might consider getting down to it and proving themselves better than the competition.
It strikes me that anyone capable of writing shit like that has never been in a position of success in his/her life. Perhaps a little research into the number of top, very talented photographers who have simply walked away from the business or even taken themselves right out of life would provide the truthful answer and illuminate the minds of those who think it's about 'proving yourself better'. Being 'better' is not always the solution or answer to the problems that are created outwith the photographer's control.
Life deep in the professional photographic world isn't like it looks from the edges.
Rob C
-
Yes the Camera Industry is in the Dumper for several reasons that Michael alluded to.
That doesn't necessarily mean the Photography industry is in the dumper. What all you guys seem to be saying is that the Photography industry is in the dumper.
Digital HAS changed things just as all technological breakthroughs do. I am sure that when George Eastman first introduced the Kodak people said the same, just as when Photography was invented someone said that from today painting was dead.
When the television was first sold someone said that the radio was dead (or was it the cinema?) It hasn't happened, things have just changed.
Yes the camera in a cellphone has impacted on camera sales, but on the compact part of the camera industry not really the high end DSLR's.
Sure the fact that we can now download our images to a computer to view them instead of having them printed has had an effect on the photo finishing industry, but that industry has changed as well and now offers more products than ever. Who back in the film days had their images printed on canvas or corrugated iron?
The quality of imaging is better than it has ever been and certainly better than any thing film could produce.
But a good camera does not a Photographer make, just as having an F1 Ferrari in the garage doesn't make you Michael Schumacher.
I think like Michael that the Camera Industry has reached a Plateau for now. Whether this will change I don't know. But mostly we are at a point where the resolution is excellent from any DSLR be it APS sensor, Full Frame or the very small medium format market.
In most cases people would be hard pushed to spot the difference in format if they saw prints side by side.
I am also sure that there will be a major change in the sensor technology in if not the next 5 years then certainly the next 10.
But 99% of people are more than happy with the images they get with whatever they shoot with be it a cellphone or a Phase one medium format.
So as it must have been back in the days of film, the camera market is slowing down. Really it lasted so long only because manufacturers kept putting new things in a camera rather like the computer industry. They seemed to have treated it a bit like the car industry, but even that model has slowed down.
The market for images has changed, but it won't go away. It has changed from film to digital just like it changed from wet plate to dry plate and roll film. But it won't go away.
But that isn't what Michael was saying in his article. He was saying that to keep in the game manufacturers have to actually listen to their customers, and it seems to me at present that most manufacturers aren't. Nikon's acknowledgement of focus problems with the early D800's and the dust/oil spot problems with the D600 were bad to say the least. In fact I think the only thing that forced Nikon to acknowledge th problems with the D600 was the threat of a class action law suit. They must have known they would have lost that one and the damage to reputation (to say nothing of the actual financial cost) had the potential to be huge. Witness the completely different response by Sony and Fuji to light leak problems with their latest cameras. Did they learn from the D600 debacle or are they just better customer service orientated?
I believe that there will be another big jump in the mega pixel race before the technology changes completely, but the big question is whether we really need it. 36MP in the D800 and the Sony camera is enough to print something almost as big as you can imagine, so what is more MP going to achieve apart from bigger files?
If Nikon came out with a 54MP camera I can't see myself buying one just for the extra resolution. It isn't worth the money. And therein lies the problem. We have reached the point where it is beyond good and people are seeing that and don't go out and buy the latest just because it is newer.
Now if a different sensor technology came out say similar to the Foveon chip which substantially produced a better image in a smaller file then I MIGHT be tempted. But until that happens I am quite happy with my D800.
All this doesn't change the fact that the Photographic industry as a whole has changed and manufacturers are seeing it as part of the bottom line because manufacturers of products that weren't anything to do with Photography are jumping on the bandwagon. That's all it is, but the camera manufacturers haven't learnt to push into competing unaligned markets (apart from Kodak who made stupid statements such as aiming for the no 1 position in the inkjet printer market years after Canon and Epson had secured a big hold on that market) .
To those of you who complain that the industry is dying go away and think about it and remember that Michael was commenting on the CAMERA industry not the Photography industry as in the taking and selling of images.
-
I'm not saying hobbyist should not turn a penny, I question the commitment to it being a hobby. It's always been possible for anyone to submit to an agency. The reason so many do now is because it's cheap and easy.
The goal all the time is for it to be easier and less involving, higher iso, more fps more more more. That to me that is the opposite of what you would want out of a hobby isn't it?
Someone mentioned stamp collecting, I would think to be a successful stamp collector requires a lot of input, time and dedication. Gaining the knowledge is part of the hobby. If photography is a hobby why would you not want to explore it, why would you not want to see what hand printing an image feels like? getting involved with the process.
Just hitting a button on your handheld computer and viewing on a computer screen, or maybe knocking out a print on the Epson at a flick of the fingertip must lose the fascination at some point. you might as well say texting is a hobby. There is little core of dedicated hobby photographers to support a mass global camera industry investing in r&d for the next improvement. Sure there are the dedicated, I doubt enough to support the industry anything like it is now. The dedication of the masses that call photography a hobby will swerve when the next gizmo becomes a hobby. When having the latest greatest camera no longer impresses other people, when a dedicated picture taking camera is not so cool, it will no longer be their hobby.
There are several ironies about the digitalisation of photography that I reflect upon with a certain wry amusement. The foremost is the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by professionals; it was cheaper, quicker, more cost efficient for not only did it do away with film but also the necessity of having someone else do the printing, the photographer retained control of the whole process as Rob C. has pointed out. Now we are told that digital cameras have ruined photography because anybody can now do it cheaper, quicker etc.
The second great paradox is that the very companies that pro's slavishly exulted for producing ever better equipment were the very ones promoting their cameras to the public with the suggestion that they could now take shots as good as any professional. Why we were not boycotting Canon and Nikon rather than salivating all over their latest cameras and lenses? Items of kit, BTW, that relied heavily upon IT for their design and manufacture, the same sort of technology that was found in the cameras themselves. The camera companies pulled off an almighty con in my view, but it's too late to do anything about it now.
I would agree entirely that the camera to many just became an extension of the PC, something useful to do with the shiny new computer, and this has transformed image capture into a whole new sphere of social discourse. Note that I said image capture and not photography for we all appreciate that the two are different although the most people don't, or I should say, didn't, for I get the impression that the recognition of a photographers skill is making something of a comeback which brings me to a third inconsistency.
How often do we reassure ourselves that a good picture can be taken on any camera? We then wonder why people think they don't need photographers anymore, the answer is because we've just told them that! Sure, in the right hands and right conditions pretty images can be created on most devices but their performance envelope is quite constrained which is why Canon and Nikon sell cameras at 5,000 bucks as well as 50, to ensure that good photos can be taken under a much wider range of conditions and with a better image quality.
We also fall into the trap of talking about photography as one great homogenous craft which simply isn't true. There are those who can do very well in a studio while others will present landscapes with a sentiment that adds greatly to the viewing pleasure and so on. Adam Smith came up with the idea of the division of labour and he was probably right, to a point, and I don't see why photography should consider itself immune to the strictures of that theory.
I will happily repeat the cliche that the digital process put a bomb under the world of photography, but I rather hope and believe that the smoke is clearing, the debris settling and we can start to rebuild the trade, it won't be the same as it was before and to try and impose the old structure will the biggest mistake of all.
-
It would be amusing were it not so sad. The suggestion is made that rather than complain, folks might consider getting down to it and proving themselves better than the competition.
It strikes me that anyone capable of writing shit like that has never been in a position of success in his/her life. Perhaps a little research into the number of top, very talented photographers who have simply walked away from the business or even taken themselves right out of life would provide the truthful answer and illuminate the minds of those who think it's about 'proving yourself better'. Being 'better' is not always the solution or answer to the problems that are created outwith the photographer's control.
Life deep in the professional photographic world isn't like it looks from the edges.
Rob C
Not every pro photographer is going to reach the top of their profession just as not every footballer gets paid £300,000 a week. The vast majority will happily earn a living below the favoured few and it is these that I address, not wannabe superstars.
I for one fought the onslaught of digitilsation like heck as you may recall, and I still think it can't do B&W 'properly' but then I wised up and decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Now, it's still early days but I made some big changes to my approach to photography, call it sh*t by all means, but I'm not the one here that's thinking of giving it up, in fact I've put some money back into it over the last few months and plan to do the same before the year is out (touch wood).
BTW, How did these heroes reach their exalted position if it wasn't by proving themselves better?
-
When I was young and pondering to become a professional photographer my idea was (after various talks with my parents),
that this is a market, where quality of work is only a small part of the equation of success.
I felt, that I might just not reach a position where I wanted to be, even if I were very good.
So I became a physician.
After all, I think it has two sides now:
Sure - it's sort of easier for me to make a living than for the average photog, but I still have a feeling I made a mistake.
Don't get me wrong - I love my job, but with hindsight I think one should follow what one really wants to do from the very beginning.
Reason is overrated.
Cheers
~Chris
-
How could we possibly forget?
And now I am reprimanded for not being backward enough!
'tis a funny old world.
-
When I was young and pondering to become a professional photographer my idea was (after various talks with my parents),
that this is a market, where quality of work is only a small part of the equation of success.
I felt, that I might just not reach a position where I wanted to be, even if I were very good.
So I became a physician.
After all, I think it has two sides now:
Sure - it's sort of easier for me to make a living than for the average photog, but I still have a feeling I made a mistake.
Don't get me wrong - I love my job, but with hindsight I think one should follow what one really wants to do from the very beginning.
Reason is overrated.
Cheers
~Chris
You hobbyist you!! ;)
-
How often do we reassure ourselves that a good picture can be taken on any camera? We then wonder why people think they don't need photographers anymore, the answer is because we've just told them that!
Not sure how you managed to infer the latter from the former. Being able to take a good picture with any camera is a reference to the ability of good photographers and does not mean anyone can take a good photograph or that cameras make pictures all by themselves, with no photographers being needed.
-
Not sure how you managed to infer the latter from the former. Being able to take a good picture with any camera is a reference to the ability of good photographers and does not mean anyone can take a good photograph or that cameras make pictures all by themselves, with no photographers being needed.
Yes I do have to agree with this conclusion.
There are a lot of excellent photographic tools out there but for many people using a big expensive DSLR with excellent lenses just results in the same mediocre images they shot with a point-and-shoot or a cellphone.
Good photographers on the other hand can often produce exceptional images with equipment that could be called mediocre.
This is particularly true if one regards good image making as producing images with emotional impact rather than just on judging images on resolution, sharpness, detail etc.
I am sure that all this is rather self-evident.
Tony Jay
-
Yes I do have to agree with this conclusion.
There are a lot of excellent photographic tools out there but for many people using a big expensive DSLR with excellent lenses just results in the same mediocre images they shot with a point-and-shoot or a cellphone.
Good photographers on the other hand can often produce exceptional images with equipment that could be called mediocre.
This is particularly true if one regards good image making as producing images with emotional impact rather than just on judging images on resolution, sharpness, detail etc.
I am sure that all this is rather self-evident.
Apparently not. But thank god for all those people who think a better camera will make them good as the pros. It helps keep prices down. :)
And if you want to see good photographers using cheap cameras click this link. (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5)
-
No. I rather think you are being reprimanded for being a weekend-warrior who has made no contribution to - and couldn't give a rat's arse about - the industry.
Or perhaps I'm getting a little too close to some truths that those in denial find uncomfortable, hence the bitterness expressed.
-
Not sure how you managed to infer the latter from the former. Being able to take a good picture with any camera is a reference to the ability of good photographers and does not mean anyone can take a good photograph or that cameras make pictures all by themselves, with no photographers being needed.
And therein lies the problem. It can also be inferred that you don't need to be a good photographer to take a good picture, if you are a camera maker/dealer/box shifter which interpretation would you be pushing? You and I know what is meant but to somebody with little knowledge of the craft it might induce a different belief altogether.
-
"Things aren't the way they used to be. I'm sad because I've grown old and like most old men, I'm convinced that things were better in the past...when I was young."
I'm a hobbyist.
Photography (defined most broadly) is having a more profound and more positive impact on the human race than ever before.
Go ahead, make my day and try to argue with that point.
Photographs in many ("inferior/crappy/non-artistic") new forms are incredibly important to the communication and relationships between people, particularly young people. You know, the young: So easy to deride, so difficult to truly understand and respect.
Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat etc, etc, etc......are about pictures. This ecosystem thrives on photographs, and its a very important aspect of life to a couple of generations of people all over the world. Its a big part of how they know, love, and connect with other people. Photography is at least partially about communication, and there is more photographic communication between human beings than ever before, particularly Millenials.
The old guard doesn't 'own' it anymore. The black box has been opened. The technology is cheap, ubiquitous, and the technical quality is improving exponentially. Newspapers jettison their entire staff of old white guys in vests, yet somehow....life goes on.
-
"Things aren't the way they used to be. I'm sad because I've grown old and like most old men, I'm convinced that things were better in the past...when I was young."
I'm a hobbyist.
Photography (defined most broadly) is having a more profound and more positive impact on the human race than ever before.
Go ahead, make my day and try to argue with that point.
Photographs in many ("inferior/crappy/non-artistic") new forms are incredibly important to the communication and relationships between people, particularly young people. You know, the young: So easy to deride, so difficult to truly understand and respect.
Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat etc, etc, etc......are about pictures. This ecosystem thrives on photographs, and its a very important aspect of life to a couple of generations of people all over the world. Its a big part of how they know, love, and connect with other people. Photography is at least partially about communication, and there is more photographic communication between human beings than ever before, particularly Millenials.
The old guard doesn't 'own' it anymore. The black box has been opened. The technology is cheap, ubiquitous, and the technical quality is improving exponentially. Newspapers jettison their entire staff of old white guys in vests, yet somehow....life goes on.
Amen to that.
It's a different ballgame altogether and anyone who wishes to make a living from it nowdays has got to think well beyond the old order.
-
When I was young and pondering to become a professional photographer my idea was (after various talks with my parents),
that this is a market, where quality of work is only a small part of the equation of success.
I felt, that I might just not reach a position where I wanted to be, even if I were very good.
So I became a physician.
After all, I think it has two sides now:
Sure - it's sort of easier for me to make a living than for the average photog, but I still have a feeling I made a mistake.
Don't get me wrong - I love my job, but with hindsight I think one should follow what one really wants to do from the very beginning.
Reason is overrated.
Cheers
~Chris
So are the spiritual benefits of garrets.
Rob C
-
As it happens I've just come across this as a way of selling photography, take a deep breath before looking at the prices!
https://www.etsy.com/ie/browse/art/photography?ref=br_nav_new_2
However much we may look down upon this sort of market place it's not going to go away.
-
There are several ironies about the digitalisation of photography that I reflect upon with a certain wry amusement. The foremost is the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by professionals; it was cheaper, quicker, more cost efficient for not only did it do away with film but also the necessity of having someone else do the printing, the photographer retained control of the whole process as Rob C. has pointed out. Now we are told that digital cameras have ruined photography because anybody can now do it cheaper, quicker etc.
I think this quotation is misleading, to say the least.
I think I know pretty well what Rob C might have been writing/pointing out. Retaining control of the entire process is a reference to the photographic aspects of it. Those started with the shooting and then went through the processing of film, where that was possible (exclude Kodachrome, a huge mainstay for many travelling lensmen) and on to the printing of the final output. Some top snappers ran their own darkrooms and some farmed out but oversaw the results. Then the stuff was handed over and the invoice rendered. Finis.
With digital, that simple, operational sequence was broken, and instead of going on to the next assignment or hunting for it, time was eaten up at a computer at the end of every shoot and a new fight invented just to achieve payment (or probably not) for the additional hours spent doing the work of the retouchers and separation houses, who had better equipment anyway, and were highly skilled in scanning and the rest of it. The result? More responsibility in areas where photographer understanding was very thin, for not much more (if any) reward.
As for digital being cheaper, really? Film costs were never a problem for photographers unless at the bottom of the scale; film was either billed separately or calculated into the quotation. What became dearer was the hardware. Much dearer. And it lasted for a shorter time and was more vulnerable that mechanical cameras ever were.
Rob C
-
I think this quotation is misleading, to say the least.
I think I know pretty well what Rob C might have been writing/pointing out. Retaining control of the entire process is a reference to the photographic aspects of it. Those started with the shooting and then went through the processing of film, where that was possible (exclude Kodachrome, a huge mainstay for many travelling lensmen) and on to the printing of the final output. Some top snappers ran their own darkrooms and some farmed out but oversaw the results. Then the stuff was handed over and the invoice rendered. Finis.
With digital, that simple, operational sequence was broken, and instead of going on to the next assignment or hunting for it, time was eaten up at a computer at the end of every shoot and a new fight invented just to achieve payment (or probably not) for the additional hours spent doing the work of the retouchers and separation houses, who had better equipment anyway, and were highly skilled in scanning and the rest of it. The result? More responsibility in areas where photographer understanding was very thin, for not much more (if any) reward.
As for digital being cheaper, really? Film costs were never a problem for photographers unless at the bottom of the scale; film was either billed separately or calculated into the quotation. What became dearer was the hardware. Much dearer. And it lasted for a shorter time and was more vulnerable that mechanical cameras ever were.
Rob C
I'm sorry if I have caused you any offence Rob but it was a fine line between giving credit to you for a particular line of thought or seemingly attempting to hijack a point you had made in an earlier post. I had wished to do the former but this was before ideas that ran parallel to mine had been described by your goodself as 'sh*t'.
-
I'm sorry if I have caused you any offence Rob but it was a fine line between giving credit to you for a particular line of thought or seemingly attempting to hijack a point you had made in an earlier post. I had wished to do the former but this was before ideas that ran parallel to mine had been described by your goodself as 'sh*t'.
There you are then: you've resolved all the problems of professional photography in one fell swoop!
Rob C
-
I'm not saying hobbyist should not turn a penny, I question the commitment to it being a hobby. It's always been possible for anyone to submit to an agency. The reason so many do now is because it's cheap and easy.
The goal all the time is for it to be easier and less involving, higher iso, more fps more more more. That to me that is the opposite of what you would want out of a hobby isn't it?
Someone mentioned stamp collecting, I would think to be a successful stamp collector requires a lot of input, time and dedication. Gaining the knowledge is part of the hobby. If photography is a hobby why would you not want to explore it, why would you not want to see what hand printing an image feels like? getting involved with the process.
Just hitting a button on your handheld computer and viewing on a computer screen, or maybe knocking out a print on the Epson at a flick of the fingertip must lose the fascination at some point. you might as well say texting is a hobby. There is little core of dedicated hobby photographers to support a mass global camera industry investing in r&d for the next improvement. Sure there are the dedicated, I doubt enough to support the industry anything like it is now. The dedication of the masses that call photography a hobby will swerve when the next gizmo becomes a hobby. When having the latest greatest camera no longer impresses other people, when a dedicated picture taking camera is not so cool, it will no longer be their hobby.
Certain people love freezing time. Just because it is easy to print is not a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing. But people are also getting burnt out on photos. Photos are polluting our earth. How many of the 34 million free photos Getty released do you even have time to look through? Flickr has many forums now that approach a million images each. As soon as a pix is posted it get burried.
-
Yes the Camera Industry is in the Dumper for several reasons that Michael alluded to.
That doesn't necessarily mean the Photography industry is in the dumper. What all you guys seem to be saying is that the Photography industry is in the dumper.
Digital HAS changed things just as all technological breakthroughs do. I am sure that when George Eastman first introduced the Kodak people said the same, just as when Photography was invented someone said that from today painting was dead.
When the television was first sold someone said that the radio was dead (or was it the cinema?) It hasn't happened, things have just changed.
Yes the camera in a cellphone has impacted on camera sales, but on the compact part of the camera industry not really the high end DSLR's.
Sure the fact that we can now download our images to a computer to view them instead of having them printed has had an effect on the photo finishing industry, but that industry has changed as well and now offers more products than ever. Who back in the film days had their images printed on canvas or corrugated iron?
The quality of imaging is better than it has ever been and certainly better than any thing film could produce.
But a good camera does not a Photographer make, just as having an F1 Ferrari in the garage doesn't make you Michael Schumacher.
I think like Michael that the Camera Industry has reached a Plateau for now. Whether this will change I don't know. But mostly we are at a point where the resolution is excellent from any DSLR be it APS sensor, Full Frame or the very small medium format market.
In most cases people would be hard pushed to spot the difference in format if they saw prints side by side.
I am also sure that there will be a major change in the sensor technology in if not the next 5 years then certainly the next 10.
But 99% of people are more than happy with the images they get with whatever they shoot with be it a cellphone or a Phase one medium format.
So as it must have been back in the days of film, the camera market is slowing down. Really it lasted so long only because manufacturers kept putting new things in a camera rather like the computer industry. They seemed to have treated it a bit like the car industry, but even that model has slowed down.
The market for images has changed, but it won't go away. It has changed from film to digital just like it changed from wet plate to dry plate and roll film. But it won't go away.
But that isn't what Michael was saying in his article. He was saying that to keep in the game manufacturers have to actually listen to their customers, and it seems to me at present that most manufacturers aren't. Nikon's acknowledgement of focus problems with the early D800's and the dust/oil spot problems with the D600 were bad to say the least. In fact I think the only thing that forced Nikon to acknowledge th problems with the D600 was the threat of a class action law suit. They must have known they would have lost that one and the damage to reputation (to say nothing of the actual financial cost) had the potential to be huge. Witness the completely different response by Sony and Fuji to light leak problems with their latest cameras. Did they learn from the D600 debacle or are they just better customer service orientated?
I believe that there will be another big jump in the mega pixel race before the technology changes completely, but the big question is whether we really need it. 36MP in the D800 and the Sony camera is enough to print something almost as big as you can imagine, so what is more MP going to achieve apart from bigger files?
If Nikon came out with a 54MP camera I can't see myself buying one just for the extra resolution. It isn't worth the money. And therein lies the problem. We have reached the point where it is beyond good and people are seeing that and don't go out and buy the latest just because it is newer.
Now if a different sensor technology came out say similar to the Foveon chip which substantially produced a better image in a smaller file then I MIGHT be tempted. But until that happens I am quite happy with my D800.
All this doesn't change the fact that the Photographic industry as a whole has changed and manufacturers are seeing it as part of the bottom line because manufacturers of products that weren't anything to do with Photography are jumping on the bandwagon. That's all it is, but the camera manufacturers haven't learnt to push into competing unaligned markets (apart from Kodak who made stupid statements such as aiming for the no 1 position in the inkjet printer market years after Canon and Epson had secured a big hold on that market) .
To those of you who complain that the industry is dying go away and think about it and remember that Michael was commenting on the CAMERA industry not the Photography industry as in the taking and selling of images.
Well spoken post! 35mm (scanned) negative film is about 3 or 4 mp, so anything above that is a gift. No doubt there is a use for 54mp. I don't need 54mp. The comera fondlers will buy it thinking that is all they need to be great.
-
There you are then: you've resolved all the problems of professional photography in one fell swoop!
Rob C
Who do I bill?
-
Well spoken post! 35mm negative film is about 3 or 4 mp, so anything above that is a gift. No doubt there is a use for 54mp. I don't need 54mp. The comera fondlers will buy it thinking that is all they need to be great.
Indeed. When Canon brought out there first 5mp camera it was generally regarded as the final stake through the heart of 35mm film.
-
As for digital being cheaper, really? Film costs were never a problem for photographers unless at the bottom of the scale; film was either billed separately or calculated into the quotation. What became dearer was the hardware. Much dearer. And it lasted for a shorter time and was more vulnerable that mechanical cameras ever were.
Absolutely. Digital being cheaper is sooooo not the case for pro photographers.
-
Absolutely. Digital being cheaper is sooooo not the case for pro photographers.
If you folks could kindly pause for a moment and note what I was actually saying it would be appreciated. Should you read the paragraph again you will hopefully realise I was speaking of the past, but let me enlighten you anyway. Digital was considered cheaper when it first came galloping over the horizon and many photographers were delighted to do away with the expense of developing film,* this was before it was realised that digital was advancing at such a pace that more frequent upgrades were required to cameras, software and computers. Now, unless you are into full blown HB systems it's my guess that turning back to film may well turn out to be dearer than staying with a FF dSLR. Has anyone done the sums lately? Remember, you are going to have allow time for scanning if you want to distribute your work electronically and nothing less than MF will be required to match even the most basic of FF bodies for IQ.
* Someone somewhere had to pay for it eventually.
-
Absolutely. Digital being cheaper is sooooo not the case for pro photographers.
Here we go, just done some sums.
Cost of developing 120 roll film and having it scanned (resolution not specified) £13 per roll. ( http://www.apertureuk.com/film_developing_in_aperture_uk_london.html )
Shooting at 6x4.5 = 15 shots per film or £.87 per exposure.
200 shots in an average session (adjust to taste) = £174.
Cost of Nikon d800 =£1,800
Number of sessions before digital becomes cheaper than film = 10.3
Number of shots before digital becomes cheaper than film = 2,060 (check the shutter count on your digital)
Notes.
If everybody was shooting film developing costs would no doubt come down.
No allowance has been made for purchase of film camera.
Computer and software is not included but you are likely to have a computer anyway and reasonable software can be had for free.
All sorts of peripheral costs for both systems have been ignored in this comparison.
If anybody knows of pro's switching back to film because of the cost issue then please bring it to our attention.
-
Here we go, just done some sums.
Cost of developing 120 roll film and having it scanned (resolution not specified) £13 per roll. ( http://www.apertureuk.com/film_developing_in_aperture_uk_london.html )
Shooting at 6x4.5 = 15 shots per film or £.87 per exposure.
200 shots in an average session (adjust to taste) = £174.
Cost of Nikon d800 =£1,800
Number of sessions before digital becomes cheaper than film = 10.3
Cost to photographer of film for a job=£0 as you charged it to client as an expense. This has already been mentioned above.
Try doing that with your cameras/hard drives/computers/software.
Also you would use 220 not 120 if shooting the amounts you suggest.
Not to mention that you are comparing a 35mm DSLR system with a medium format one. If I want to get the same look with digital kit, you are probably looking at buying the top of the range Hassy/Phase One to get the big sensor size.
If you folks could kindly pause for a moment and note what I was actually saying it would be appreciated. Should you read the paragraph again you will hopefully realise I was speaking of the past, but let me enlighten you anyway. Digital was considered cheaper when it first came galloping over the horizon and many photographers were delighted to do away with the expense of developing film,* this was before it was realised that digital was advancing at such a pace that more frequent upgrades were required to cameras, software and computers.
You only thought digital was cheap if you were a complete idiot and didn't do your sums correctly. And yet again, seeing as pros didn't pay for film as such, your argument is a bit flawed from the outset.
-
Cost to photographer of film for a job=£0 as you charged it to client as an expense. This has already been mentioned above.
Try doing that with your cameras/hard drives/computers/software.
Also you would use 220 not 120 if shooting the amounts you suggest.
Not to mention that you are comparing a 35mm DSLR system with a medium format one. If I want to get the same look with digital kit, you are probably looking at buying the top of the range Hassy/Phase One to get the big sensor size.
You only thought digital was cheap if you were a complete idiot and didn't do your sums correctly. And yet again, seeing as pros didn't pay for film as such, your argument is a bit flawed from the outset.
Depends on what you are shooting. A lot of people would quote for a job including film costs. And even so, doing a job without film would offer a competitive advantage over a fellow who was going to add film to the bill. Not everyone was shooting glamour and fashion in exotic locations for wealthy clients. Are we talking about going back to film now, or changing over to digital 10 years ago BTW?
A roll of 220 costs roughly twice as much to develop because it has twice the surface area, hence twice the chemical requirement. Sure, there may be some savings on labour but not an awful lot. The scanning per frame will be the same, so £14 per roll of 220 for that alone
My 12mp FF is giving better results than my Bronicas ever did and I don't have to worry about fancy drum scanners to ensure the negative is held flat.
BTW, were you working as a pro ten years ago?
Edit; I forgot the cost of the film - around £6.00 - 6.50 per roll, let's call it 40p per shot bringing the total to £1.27 per frame and if we take the top Nikon (D4) as £4,000 then 3,150 shots will see it paid for. What's the shutter count on your main camera?
-
The goal all the time is for it to be easier and less involving, higher iso, more fps more more more. That to me that is the opposite of what you would want out of a hobby isn't it?
Someone mentioned stamp collecting, I would think to be a successful stamp collector requires a lot of input, time and dedication. Gaining the knowledge is part of the hobby. If photography is a hobby why would you not want to explore it, why would you not want to see what hand printing an image feels like? getting involved with the process.
That is what you think you'd enjoy if your hobby was photography; but your hobby isn't photography and others may take pleasure from the what you consider banal.
-
Depends on what you are shooting. A lot of people would quote for a job including film costs. And even so, doing a job without film would offer a competitive advantage over a fellow who was going to add film to the bill. Not everyone was shooting glamour and fashion in exotic locations for wealthy clients. Are we talking about going back to film now, or changing over to digital 10 years ago BTW?
And I doubt that that many of us were doing it every day, either. The reality and the point is that by the time a company is big enough to afford the services of an advertising agency then it isn't interested in counting rolls of film. Advertising agencies used to be the source of most work. I can't remember any agency asking me how many rolls of film I'd have to use before I was given a shoot.
I can only imagine that such an argument (about film-cost relevance) has to be made from the perspective of someone who has never had any real commercial clients. Hell's teeth, I didn't consider it even when I was floating the occasional stock shoot for myself, facing the bill for the whole goddam thing!
Rob C
-
And I doubt that that many of us were doing it every day, either. The reality and the point is that by the time a company is big enough to afford the services of an advertising agency then it isn't interested in counting rolls of film. Advertising agencies used to be the source of most work. I can't remember any agency asking me how many rolls of film I'd have to use before I was given a shoot.
I can only imagine that such an argument (about film-cost relevance) has to be made from the perspective of someone who has never had any real commercial clients. Hell's teeth, I didn't consider it even when I was floating the occasional stock shoot for myself, facing the bill for the whole goddam thing!
Rob C
You seem to be forgetting those 'poor' wedding professionals and others catering to public demand for portraits, local events, school photography and the myriad of other small jobs they were called upon to perform. One is left to surmise that such unfortunate neglect stems from only having operated in a very small and privileged corner of the great photographic pond. Oh, and they would have to be doing it every day to make a living. Wow, just how unprofessional is that!
-
You seem to be forgetting those 'poor' wedding professionals and others catering to public demand for portraits, local events, school photography and the myriad of other small jobs they were called upon to perform. One is left to surmise that such unfortunate neglect stems from only having operated in a very small and privileged corner of the great photographic pond. Oh, and they would have to be doing it every day to make a living. Wow, just how unprofessional is that!
That sounds like an old Michael Foot script.
It also suggest a lack of understanding of the meaning of the word privilege. I suppose one could extend it to mean that the more people I went to see, the more knock-backs I faced, the more 'privileged' I became...
Rob C
-
Just out of interest, I realised that I still had the original invoice for my Nikon FM2 which I used to look upon as the 'fast-synching' 35mm body.
Date 20/10/89 (Which surprises me: I thought I'd stepped away earlier than that...)
Nikon FM2 Body Black ................. £ 308.70 VAT ....... £ 46.31 .......... £ 355.01
Nikon MD-12 Motor Drive ............. 207.83 ...... 31.17 .......... £ 239.00
Total ................................................................................................... £ 594.01
Also, I have another one:
Date 27/11/91 (Surprised me even more!)
Nikon F4s ............................................................................ Total £ 1415.00
Shows that even Nikon didn't rate the FM series very highly, even though many snappers apparently did.
Interesting days, them wuz.
Rob C
-
In 1984-85 I travelled around SAE, China, Tibet and Nepal for 7 months, and carried at one point 270 rolls of Kodachrome 64 Pro in my backpack. That was 9700 frames. Cost of film and development at today's prices would be around 4800€.
Now the same amount of RAW frames, at 6x7 film quality or better, would fit on 10 32GB memory cards, costing about 270€. And weigh less than one roll of film. With the price difference alone (and cards can be re-used) I would buy a nice travel camera kit, from Fuji system for example (and the cameras can be also reused or sold…).
Actually last year I was in Tibet again, and shot over 1000 frames on some days. My 7 month film supply would have lasted only ten days at that pace.
Things were NOT better then.
-
In 1984-85 I travelled around SAE, China, Tibet and Nepal for 7 months, and carried at one point 270 rolls of Kodachrome 64 Pro in my backpack. That was 9700 frames. Cost of film and development at today's prices would be around 4800€.
Now the same amount of RAW frames, at 6x7 film quality or better, would fit on 10 32GB memory cards, costing about 270€. And weigh less than one roll of film. With the price difference alone (and cards can be re-used) I would buy a nice travel camera kit, from Fuji system for example (and the cameras can be also reused or sold…).
Actually last year I was in Tibet again, and shot over 1000 frames on some days. My 7 month film supply would have lasted only ten days at that pace.
Things were NOT better then.
No, of course not, 'things' were pretty much the same, only pictures were better. I wonder what your honest rate of 'keepers' was then and is now.
I found this delightful quotation this afternoon, from good olde David Bailey, of course:
"Oh, I love digital. I think it's great - it makes my film pictures feel more exclusive."
;-)
Rob C
-
I get the impression that this thread is suffering from an injection of the perverted mindset that suggests that "professional" photographers have some sort of "right" to be able to earn a living from their occupation. And that they object because the world has changed and there is no longer much of a market for their mediocrity.
The great driving forces of the art and craft of photography have always been in the hands of the genuine amateur who were not encumbered by crassly materialistic considerations such as income, profits, client opinions, client demands, cost/benefit analyses, etc., etc., etc.
Alongside those mainstream photographic activities, there was still space for a few exceptionally talented "professionals" to make a living. We may have secretly despised them for prostituting their craft in the pursuit of filthy lucre (or we may not - after all, it did not concern us). Now, however, we seem to be assailed on all sides by girning, moaning, malcontents who complain that a few amateurs are taking away their livelihoods by producing (as they always did) better quality art at no cost to the consumer.
So, please, if "professionals" do find their "profession" threatened in the 21st Century, then so be it. Many other old trades have become completely redundant and buried in the mists of history. Is it not time for "pro-photographers" to let go and accept a substantial downsizing of their realm. There will always be a commercial need for the very best - but that may be a relatively small proportion of the current cadre of pretenders.
This thread began with the question, "Why is the camera industry in the dumper?" that has nothing to do with professional photography. The industry always has been driven - and always will be - by the amateurs who are right at the cutting edge of technological and artistic advancement.
-
I take it as read that everybody has knock backs, none of us are immune.
But anyway, I ran the figures through a historical value calculator ( http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php) and came up with the following for the FM2 kit -
A simple Purchasing Power Calculator would say the relative value is £1,251.00. This answer is obtained by multiplying £594.00 by the percentage increase in the RPI from 1989 to 2012.
And for the F4 -
A simple Purchasing Power Calculator would say the relative value is £2,572.00. This answer is obtained by multiplying £1,415.00 by the percentage increase in the RPI from 1991 to 2012.
So the F4 would be lie somewhere between the D800 and D4 at today's (2012's) prices while what you paid for the FM2 would buy you Nikon's entry level D610 with a some change, but not a lot.
-
I get the impression that this thread is suffering from an injection of the perverted mindset that suggests that "professional" photographers have some sort of "right" to be able to earn a living from their occupation. And that they object because the world has changed and there is no longer much of a market for their mediocrity.
The great driving forces of the art and craft of photography have always been in the hands of the genuine amateur who were not encumbered by crassly materialistic considerations such as income, profits, client opinions, client demands, cost/benefit analyses, etc., etc., etc.
Alongside those mainstream photographic activities, there was still space for a few exceptionally talented "professionals" to make a living. We may have secretly despised them for prostituting their craft in the pursuit of filthy lucre (or we may not - after all, it did not concern us). Now, however, we seem to be assailed on all sides by girning, moaning, malcontents who complain that a few amateurs are taking away their livelihoods by producing (as they always did) better quality art at no cost to the consumer.
So, please, if "professionals" do find their "profession" threatened in the 21st Century, then so be it. Many other old trades have become completely redundant and buried in the mists of history. Is it not time for "pro-photographers" to let go and accept a substantial downsizing of their realm. There will always be a commercial need for the very best - but that may be a relatively small proportion of the current cadre of pretenders.
This thread began with the question, "Why is the camera industry in the dumper?" that has nothing to do with professional photography. The industry always has been driven - and always will be - by the amateurs who are right at the cutting edge of technological and artistic advancement.
Plus 1.
-
I get the impression that this thread is suffering from an injection of the perverted mindset that suggests that "professional" photographers have some sort of "right" to be able to earn a living from their occupation. And that they object because the world has changed and there is no longer much of a market for their mediocrity.
The great driving forces of the art and craft of photography have always been in the hands of the genuine amateur who were not encumbered by crassly materialistic considerations such as income, profits, client opinions, client demands, cost/benefit analyses, etc., etc., etc.
Alongside those mainstream photographic activities, there was still space for a few exceptionally talented "professionals" to make a living. We may have secretly despised them for prostituting their craft in the pursuit of filthy lucre (or we may not - after all, it did not concern us). Now, however, we seem to be assailed on all sides by girning, moaning, malcontents who complain that a few amateurs are taking away their livelihoods by producing (as they always did) better quality art at no cost to the consumer.
So, please, if "professionals" do find their "profession" threatened in the 21st Century, then so be it. Many other old trades have become completely redundant and buried in the mists of history. Is it not time for "pro-photographers" to let go and accept a substantial downsizing of their realm. There will always be a commercial need for the very best - but that may be a relatively small proportion of the current cadre of pretenders.
This thread began with the question, "Why is the camera industry in the dumper?" that has nothing to do with professional photography. The industry always has been driven - and always will be - by the amateurs who are right at the cutting edge of technological and artistic advancement.
+1....yes. Nicely summarized.
-
These cost calculations are totally nonsense in my opinion.
Film and digital are so grossly different in look, usability and everything -
it just doesn't make sense to use the cost factor as a significant separator these days.
Take what you need for the job or artistically and good is.
Any attempt to say film or digital is better or worse as a general statement is plain bunk in these days.
For a specific use case that's a different question.
Purely subjective, of course ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
These cost calculations are totally nonsense in my opinion.
Film and digital are so grossly different in look, usability and everything -
it just doesn't make sense to use the cost factor as a significant separator these days.
Take what you need for the job or artistically and good is.
Any attempt to say film or digital is better or worse as a general statement is plain bunk in these days.
For a specific use case that's a different question.
Purely subjective, of course ...
Cheers
~Chris
They are totally nonsense in that nobody working commercially is likely to switch back to film (I appreciate that LF film is still a tool of the trade) but it was suggested that digital was/is more expensive than film and I think that notion is now safely debunked.
-
The great driving forces of the art and craft of photography have always been in the hands of the genuine amateur who were not encumbered by crassly materialistic considerations such as income, profits, client opinions, client demands, cost/benefit analyses, etc., etc., etc.
…
The industry always has been driven - and always will be - by the amateurs who are right at the cutting edge of technological and artistic advancement.
For example?
Claims without justification are easy to make.
Claims without justification are easy to dismiss, for example - Bilge!
-
No, of course not, 'things' were pretty much the same, only pictures were better. I wonder what your honest rate of 'keepers' was then and is now.
At that time I filed away about 30% of the frames, and my slide show consisted of 1900 slides arranged for tandem projection. That means 20% ratio for "good" shots.
Last summer I shot 5005 frames in 3 weeks, out of which I developed about 400, and my Picasa/Flickr albums hold about 180 frames for a "good rate" of 4%.
Both trips produced 9 "good" pictures per day. Naturally the standards have changed also in 30 years, now many of the old slides look only so-so.
I do think that not needing to think about "wasting film" means that the quality of "keeper" pictures has gotten slightly better on the average. There is a possibility of taking chances and even using the "spray and pray" method sometimes. The average quality of the total number pictures has possibly fallen, but that is inconsequential as professionals only show a sampling of the best and the rest never see the light of a monitor.
-
Rob
If I may refer back to your closing post on the 'Links to Photographers' thread I feel it worth pointing out that Professional photographers are not consigned to the dustbin by any means, it's just that the meaning of 'professional' has changed considerably and clinging on to the more halcyon days of sunny beaches and having your film costs met by the customer is no longer conducive to turning a buck in the business.
Other professions have had to adapt, accountants welcomed accounting programmes that took the slog out of their work and then their customers discovered the spreadsheet for themselves; there are pills and potions available over the counter that help keep us healthier and fitter than ever before so the medical trade has also had to change, gone are the days of whipping the appendix out on the kitchen table and a couple of aspirin for afterwards. IT has changed the face of engineering completely, look at how well made and how complex cars are nowdays, Issigonis designed the Mini on the back of an envelope, wouldn't happen today, and compare the ancient Triumphs of the Meriden co-operative with the Hinckley built bikes in your local showroom now. In fact the only trade that has still managed to retain vestiges of its traditions is law, but they make a living out of being cantankerous so no surprises there.
The time of pro photography just being Newspapers, magazines or the chap on the high street doing weddings and portraits is long gone, there is still money to be made from it and 'professionals', that is, those who do it for money, will still be around but the job has changed, just like everybody else's job has.
-
Walter,
I had to look up the meaning of axiomatic, still little idea as to how you used it. Either confirming it or questioning it, I can't hear the tone of voice you typed it in. Anyway cross stitch might be easier. :-)
Lolz, I have a notes doc of 'words to add to my vocabulary' and had already added that after reading Walter's post as it sounded impressive. My gf says that it means 'self-evident' - and says she's going to use it tomorrow herself (she already knows more big words than me).
-
I've seen some pretty silly threads on LuLa, and, embarrassing to admit, have engaged in a few, but this one certainly takes the prize. The camera industry isn't "in the dumper." The camera industry is evolving and adjusting to new technology. The camera industry will be just fine, but it'll be a different camera industry.
Damn, there I go again.
-
Photographs in many ("inferior/crappy/non-artistic") new forms are incredibly important to the communication and relationships between people, particularly young people. You know, the young: So easy to deride, so difficult to truly understand and respect.
You can understand the yoof not quite understanding the viewpoint of older folks, but all old people were young once surely. Yet they rarely seem to get young people.
-
In 1984-85 I travelled around SAE, China, Tibet and Nepal for 7 months, and carried at one point 270 rolls of Kodachrome 64 Pro in my backpack. That was 9700 frames. Cost of film and development at today's prices would be around 4800€.
Now the same amount of RAW frames, at 6x7 film quality or better, would fit on 10 32GB memory cards, costing about 270€. And weigh less than one roll of film. With the price difference alone (and cards can be re-used) I would buy a nice travel camera kit, from Fuji system for example (and the cameras can be also reused or sold…).
Actually last year I was in Tibet again, and shot over 1000 frames on some days. My 7 month film supply would have lasted only ten days at that pace.
Things were NOT better then.
The original part of this debate was about changing to digital years back not now. When a 1Gb card would have cost a lot more than €270.
-
I get the impression that this thread is suffering from an injection of the perverted mindset that suggests that "professional" photographers have some sort of "right" to be able to earn a living from their occupation. And that they object because the world has changed and there is no longer much of a market for their mediocrity.
The great driving forces of the art and craft of photography have always been in the hands of the genuine amateur who were not encumbered by crassly materialistic considerations such as income, profits, client opinions, client demands, cost/benefit analyses, etc., etc., etc.
Alongside those mainstream photographic activities, there was still space for a few exceptionally talented "professionals" to make a living. We may have secretly despised them for prostituting their craft in the pursuit of filthy lucre (or we may not - after all, it did not concern us). Now, however, we seem to be assailed on all sides by girning, moaning, malcontents who complain that a few amateurs are taking away their livelihoods by producing (as they always did) better quality art at no cost to the consumer.
So, please, if "professionals" do find their "profession" threatened in the 21st Century, then so be it. Many other old trades have become completely redundant and buried in the mists of history. Is it not time for "pro-photographers" to let go and accept a substantial downsizing of their realm. There will always be a commercial need for the very best - but that may be a relatively small proportion of the current cadre of pretenders.
This thread began with the question, "Why is the camera industry in the dumper?" that has nothing to do with professional photography. The industry always has been driven - and always will be - by the amateurs who are right at the cutting edge of technological and artistic advancement.
And my original point was/is there are not the number of dedicated enthusiasts to keep pitching up for al the new R&D and myriad of new cameras. There are many that call themselves enthusiasts but lack the in the blood dedication. I would also add that not only is digital expensive for pro's with lost revenue on various outlet streams. It's also more expensive for the hobbyist, how often can you upgrade, replace worn out printers etc. Even the weekender once they got a Hassy probably never intended buying anything else. A major upgrade once was Kodak or Fuji's expense with a new film.
We are all now expected to look upon the latest top line camera as disposable, even a car holds it's value better than a top line Canikon.
-
Depends on what you are shooting. A lot of people would quote for a job including film costs. And even so, doing a job without film would offer a competitive advantage over a fellow who was going to add film to the bill. Not everyone was shooting glamour and fashion in exotic locations for wealthy clients. Are we talking about going back to film now, or changing over to digital 10 years ago BTW?
Well seeing as it was yourself who started this off by talking about switching to digital 10+ years ago, have a guess. As for those throwing in the cost of film, well they are the same idiots who are doing work for peanuts now and undercutting everyone. God knows why you think glamour and exotic locations have anything to do with this as many clients paid for film.
With wedding photographers, they shot very little compared to today, spent less time covering the wedding/doing PPing and could also sell prints to other guests, so possibly more profitable in that some of today's digital shooters.
A roll of 220 costs roughly twice as much to develop because it has twice the surface area, hence twice the chemical requirement. Sure, there may be some savings on labour but not an awful lot. The scanning per frame will be the same, so £14 per roll of 220 for that alone
Economies of scale mean it doesn't quite work like that.
My 12mp FF is giving better results than my Bronicas ever did and I don't have to worry about fancy drum scanners to ensure the negative is held flat.
But your FF gives a different look to a MF camera and wasn't even available then, so not comparable. And if you are shooting such huge amounts of film, why wouldn't you use 35mm. And if you were shooting that much MF, the client would be paying or you would be losing money.
BTW, were you working as a pro ten years ago?
Yes. And at the time digital was very, very expensive compared to now.
Edit; I forgot the cost of the film - around £6.00 - 6.50 per roll, let's call it 40p per shot bringing the total to £1.27 per frame and if we take the top Nikon (D4) as £4,000 then 3,150 shots will see it paid for. What's the shutter count on your main camera?
You are cherry picking figures from then and now and not comparing like with actual like. The cost calculator you used does not take into account anything to do with how photographic earning or the any particular business may have changed, so the figures are utter bokum.
-
In 1984-85 I travelled around SAE, China, Tibet and Nepal for 7 months, and carried at one point 270 rolls of Kodachrome 64 Pro in my backpack. That was 9700 frames. Cost of film and development at today's prices would be around 4800€.
Now the same amount of RAW frames, at 6x7 film quality or better, would fit on 10 32GB memory cards, costing about 270€. And weigh less than one roll of film. With the price difference alone (and cards can be re-used) I would buy a nice travel camera kit, from Fuji system for example (and the cameras can be also reused or sold…).
Actually last year I was in Tibet again, and shot over 1000 frames on some days. My 7 month film supply would have lasted only ten days at that pace.
Things were NOT better then.
And those Kodacchromes in a few libraries would of likely returned you what? A decent profit on your trip. Beats 20,000 given away by Getty.
Each of those 1000frames in a day are basically worthless to anyone but you.
-
And those Kodacchromes in a few libraries would of likely returned you what? A decent profit on your trip. Beats 20,000 given away by Getty.
Each of those 1000frames in a day are basically worthless to anyone but you.
It was not a work trip, but an extended holiday (and character building exercise, eighties in China...). Even then the sales from the photos paid the whole trip, all the expenses, for both me and my wife.
Those 1000 frames a day I shot on my last trip to Tibet yielded enough keepers to pay for the trip and then some. I do believe, like I said in a previous post, that having the possibility of shooting practically unlimited number of frames does result in better quality of top ten frames than stingy old school shooting with film. The rest 990 per day can go to the digital hell or heaven, costing nothing.
-
Well seeing as it was yourself who started this off by talking about switching to digital 10+ years ago, have a guess. As for those throwing in the cost of film, well they are the same idiots who are doing work for peanuts now and undercutting everyone. God knows why you think glamour and exotic locations have anything to do with this as many clients paid for film.
With wedding photographers, they shot very little compared to today, spent less time covering the wedding/doing PPing and could also sell prints to other guests, so possibly more profitable in that some of today's digital shooters.
Economies of scale mean it doesn't quite work like that.
But your FF gives a different look to a MF camera and wasn't even available then, so not comparable. And if you are shooting such huge amounts of film, why wouldn't you use 35mm. And if you were shooting that much MF, the client would be paying or you would be losing money.
Yes. And at the time digital was very, very expensive compared to now.
You are cherry picking figures from then and now and not comparing like with actual like. The cost calculator you used does not take into account anything to do with how photographic earning or the any particular business may have changed, so the figures are utter bokum.
I'm not at all sure you have a clue what you are on about. I'll let others decide for themselves.
-
I'm not at all sure you have a clue what you are on about. I'll let others decide for themselves.
You are probably confused because I'm not making irrelevant/dodgy comparisons or doing maths that doesn't add up.
-
It was not a work trip, but an extended holiday (and character building exercise, eighties in China...). Even then the sales from the photos paid the whole trip, all the expenses, for both me and my wife.
Those 1000 frames a day I shot on my last trip to Tibet yielded enough keepers to pay for the trip and then some. I do believe, like I said in a previous post, that having the possibility of shooting practically unlimited number of frames does result in better quality of top ten frames than stingy old school shooting with film. The rest 990 per day can go to the digital hell or heaven, costing nothing.
Not sure why people are comparing today with film when the debate started with this inaccurate nonsense.
There are several ironies about the digitalisation of photography that I reflect upon with a certain wry amusement. The foremost is the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by professionals; it was cheaper, quicker, more cost efficient for not only did it do away with film but also the necessity of having someone else do the printing, the photographer retained control of the whole process as Rob C. has pointed out. Now we are told that digital cameras have ruined photography because anybody can now do it cheaper, quicker etc.
Digital was silly expensive when it first started and all the cost comparisons with doing it now vs film have little bearing on changing to digital 10/12/14 years back. Things changed from film due to advantages of the new medium, but it certainly was not price for quite a few years.
When I first looked at changing it was a probably 1200 rolls of film, paid for 2-3 years upfront. A cost which one couldn't then claim back from the client, so effectively you needed to charge more to make up for the film expenses you were no longer getting. A tricky one that because as far as clients were concerned, they inaccurately thought you no longer had consumables.
-
You are probably confused because I'm not making irrelevant/dodgy comparisons or doing maths that doesn't add up.
Kindly stop making yourself appear an immature pillock.
-
Those 1000 frames a day I shot on my last trip to Tibet yielded enough keepers to pay for the trip and then some. I do believe, like I said in a previous post, that having the possibility of shooting practically unlimited number of frames does result in better quality of top ten frames than stingy old school shooting with film. The rest 990 per day can go to the digital hell or heaven, costing nothing.
The 1000 frames a day thing is a representation that you as a photographer are spending less time thinking about what you're taking a photograph of (and how it will end up.) I know, I fall into the same basket: with digital it is very easy to activate the shutter 100s or more times a day with little regard to what is produced. Tricky situation encountered? Activate HDR and shoot a threesome to get over it.
-
The 1000 frames a day thing is a representation that you as a photographer are spending less time thinking about what you're taking a photograph of (and how it will end up.) I know, I fall into the same basket: with digital it is very easy to activate the shutter 100s or more times a day with little regard to what is produced. Tricky situation encountered? Activate HDR and shoot a threesome to get over it.
In reality the same time is spent either way, either at the time of capture or via post processing. If one is indecisive during the shooting stage I will bet that the time they spend post processing is even longer and one of the allures of digital is that it allows a million post processing iterations. My style of shooting, even with digital 35mm gear is the same disciplined, methodical approach I had when shooting medium and large format film. I think people must trust their instinct more when shooting and not begin to lean towards allowing digital to save their shot. Now it does depend on what you're shooting I suppose but I've never shot anywhere near a 1000 shots a day shooting my subject matter, regardless of where I'm travelling.
Cheers,
Jay
-
Hmm, perhaps you’d care to step out from behind that piece of soft fruit?
There's something quite wonderful about this ^ expression, but I have to admit I don't know exactly what it means or where it comes from. Meanwhile, the mildly menacing and taunting tone is obvious and fascinating. Klaban (or anyone else familiar with the phrase) care to elaborate or explain this to me?
-
Take a look at PhotoEcosse's avatar.
Ahhhh...Thank you! I was kind of hoping for an obscure literary reference, or...something. ;D
-
I should add that my point was about anonymity and lack of accountability.
What a pity you chose that distraction instead of responding to the points that were being discussed.
-
More personal tit for tat and this thread will be closed.
-
More personal tit for tat and this thread will be closed.
That would be a blessing.