For the "prosumer", yes... For the photographer, no...Until cameras walk, set-up. compose, and press their own shutter, we still have a "Shot"... Play on words intentional...
For those who believe the camera is the most important part of photography ... maybe.
OEM's would have consumers believing this historically ... just more people than ever are buying into it as consumer's needs for pics via the web are increasing and technology is more than ever capable of meeting THOSE needs.
For those who know otherwise ... nah.
Just means more countermarketing is required to correctly influence 'buyers expectations' from the faulty assumptions they have been led toward by OEM marketing.
RustyBug wrote:
For those who believe the camera is the most important part of photography ... maybe.
OEM's would have consumers believing this historically ... just more people than ever are buying into it as consumer's needs for pics via the web are increasing and technology is more than ever capable of meeting THOSE needs.
For those who know otherwise ... nah.
Just means more countermarketing is required to correctly influence 'buyers expectations' from the faulty assumptions they have been led toward by OEM marketing.
This is where "SOOC" raises a conundrum. If you say to client's that you get it right in the camera, they will presume the camera did it. Maybe it's better to say you do it all in Photoshop...and it takes hours and hours and hours of eye-burning labor.
Yes, but getting it right 'in camera' really means getting it right 'out of camera' ... i.e. lighting, comp, etc. BEFORE the shutter releases.
The time the camera is involved comes & goes ... in a flash. (bad pun, I know)
Today's technology of camera's as 'recording devices' is great. But just because you've got an awesome tape recorder, reel-to-reel, DAT or other audio capturing device, doesn't mean that you can create awesome music with it.
Just because one has an awesome light capturing device, doesn't mean that it creates awesome images.
I can buy the very best microphone and audio gear in the world ... but you really don't want to hear what I can capture on it with my 'creative' voice.
It took years for 'great singers' to develop their voices, artistic style and professionalism / control ... and most people recognize / accept that. I'm not aware of any OEM pushing microphones (lens) and digital recorders (camera) telling the general public they can make great songs with the newest audio recording gear ... hence the public doesn't even think such a thing. With our industry ... its a different story.
Just because one has an awesome light capturing device, doesn't mean that it creates awesome images.
I can buy the very best microphone and audio gear in the world ... but you really don't want to hear what I can capture on it with my 'creative' voice.
That's why art matters more now than ever. It's not good enough for an image to be technically adequate, not for anything beyond hobby uses and perhaps Craigslist. If all they want is a record image, Uncle Bob is good enough, and we need to let Uncle Bob own the record image sphere.
Uncle Bob & CL/GWAC represent a a related good / substitute product with regard to the recording aspect. If your product is more heavily weighted toward recording vs. creating, they could cause some impact as 'more sellers' in that (i.e. recording) market.
But if you're art is showing through, then only the few newcomers with 'staying power' who can deliver the art (i.e. not the CL/GWAC masses) represent any real change in the number of sellers. I'm even beginning to wonder if the number that can actually deliver the art is actually going down (explaining why some have been raising prices) ... just over-shadowed by a glut of technical adequacy that suggests otherwise (while others are lowering prices, decrying an oversaturated market).
The caveat to this is the degree to which the 'tastes & preferences' of the buyers has changed toward technical adequacy vs. art.
RDKirk wrote:
That's why art matters more now than ever. It's not good enough for an image to be technically adequate, not for anything beyond hobby uses and perhaps Craigslist. If all they want is a record image, Uncle Bob is good enough, and we need to let Uncle Bob own the record image sphere.
Sorry, but I disagree. For much of the market, it does not need to be technically adequate or artistic. Most of the photos taken in the world end up as 4x6 prints in somebody's photo album or a 400x600 low-res JPG on a photo sharing site. Does not require much of a picture to meet those needs.
The PJ world has seen a major shift away from pros and toward Uncle Bob sending in his lucky shots to a TV station or newspaper for free. The fact is...more technologically advanced cameras make those lucky shots easier to get. Have you looked closely as the photos in the newspaper. Very little art there.
Uncle Bob has taken a huge chunk out of the wedding market too. At least once a month there is a thread here on FM started by someone shooting his first wedding and wanting to know what lens he should use.
Every time Uncle bob gives a photo to a newspaper, shoots a wedding, or takes his own Little League photos, we are seeing the technology making it possible for someone with less than top-notch skills to take better pictures. This will not put an immediate end to professional photographers, but it is putting pressure on the profession. That pressure makes it harder to maintain a business. Over the next 20 years, I would expect to see a sharp decline in the number of photographers who earn their living solely from photography.
rprouty wrote:
How many of you that replied to this post are making a living with just your photography?
As noted several times before ... currently not I (full disclosure).
Seriously researching, surveying, writing (including APA economic written papers) and analyzing the economic / business state of the industry in preparation for shifting to that end. Soliciting, collecting and sharing objective findings to that end for both edification and rebuttal.
nathanlake wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree. For much of the market, it does not need to be technically adequate or artistic. Most of the photos taken in the world end up as 4x6 prints in somebody's photo album or a 400x600 low-res JPG on a photo sharing site. Does not require much of a picture to meet those needs.
The PJ world has seen a major shift away from pros and toward Uncle Bob sending in his lucky shots to a TV station or newspaper for free. The fact is...more technologically advanced cameras make those lucky shots easier to get. Have you looked closely as the photos in the newspaper. Very little art there.
Uncle Bob has taken a huge chunk out of the wedding market too. At least once a month there is a thread here on FM started by someone shooting his first wedding and wanting to know what lens he should use.
Every time Uncle bob gives a photo to a newspaper, shoots a wedding, or takes his own Little League photos, we are seeing the technology making it possible for someone with less than top-notch skills to take better pictures. This will not put an immediate end to professional photographers, but it is putting pressure on the profession. That pressure makes it harder to maintain a business. Over the next 20 years, I would expect to see a sharp decline in the number of photographers who earn their living solely from photography....Show more →
And those who do survive the pressures of the market, will do so ... in part ... because they understand what those pressures are and how to apply economic market countermeasures. For me, it is paramount that I understand them prior to re-entering the market.
DOL expectations for the profession is actually a 12% growth rather than a decline through 2018. Given the magnitude of 'doom & gloom' banter that can be found around ... I've tried to objectively determine what market forces are largely in play on the issue from an economic model ... and am offering those for consideration to others ... so they might use them in their assessment of their own situation.
Many here have been willing to help me, so ... as previously promised ... I reciprocate my findings. In my recently submitted paper on the matter, I pointed out that the DOL projections may not be including the GWAC impact (as with any undocumenetd 'black market'). As such, that doesn't change the reality of their existence ... thereby creating an even deeper need to understand the economic forces in play. I'll share more once the doctoral review of my paper is returned.
While 'art' may not be the only thing to differentiate professional photogaphy from snapshot / recording photography ... it is an example of distinction / separation from the snapshot / recording photography which has become increasingly technially advanced. If a business model is unable (or unwilling) to provide a product that yields a distinction / separation from that arena of the market, then yes it will be part of that market and forced to contend with the pressures therein.
How each of us chooses to go about this is certainly an individual decision ... but I think it remains universally important for professional photographers to better understand economic forces in play. One such aspect is knowing where you / your products are along the supply & demand curves and how to move along them, and what factors contribute to that movement.
RustyBug wrote:
Today's technology of camera's as 'recording devices' is great. But just because you've got an awesome tape recorder, reel-to-reel, DAT or other audio capturing device, doesn't mean that you can create awesome music with it.
The analogy is specious. Sound recorders don't make it easier to sing, play a piano, violin, or any other traditional instrument. However, modern AF/AE/IS/high-ISO megazoom cameras capable of shooting RAW do make it easier to make accurate, in-focus exposures in situations where it would have been impossible in the past. By contrast, a sound recording device has no bearing on how much easier or harder it is to play the instrument that is recorded. But don't try to tell me that taking a technically sound image of a beautiful scene isn't easier with a Nikon D700 or Panasonic GH2 than, say, a Toyo A45 field camera.
Technology has removed a number of process roadblocks that increased the "cost" of being a professional photographer. The knowledgeable professional must still be aware of where the automation might interfere with his artistry, but the increasing sophistication of modern cameras removes just about every impediment but the compositional/artistic process. Hence, it is the unique artistry, combined with considerable business savvy, that will distinguish the successful career professional from the amateur.
Just because one has an awesome light capturing device, doesn't mean that it creates awesome images.
But it may create usable or competent images that satisfy much of the market.
It took years for 'great singers' to develop their voices, artistic style and professionalism / control ... and most people recognize / accept that. I'm not aware of any OEM pushing microphones (lens) and digital recorders (camera) telling the general public they can make great songs with the newest audio recording gear ... hence the public doesn't even think such a thing. With our industry ... its a different story.
Again, that is because the analogy is inapt, and any OEM making such a comparison would be laughed out of the room. However, it is tough to argue that the march of digital technology hasn't made photography a lot easier for more people to pursue.
... "No, I'm just gettin' warmed up." 