fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 9

11 12 end

Archive 2009 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

SmegHead
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #1 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

Do you think that the waning interest in professional photo's could be due to the fact that thirty years ago, Gram and Gramps might only see their grown grand-kids a couple time a year if they live any distance away so families invested in high quality... or at least high cost photography more and more to keep everyone up to date. People didn't shoot thousands of photos a year... my grandmother would frequently have a roll developed that started on Christmas and ended the next thanksgiving... all ready for a fresh yearly roll at Christmas again. Only a few members of my family had decent camera's, my Dad and my uncle had Pentax k1000's and they where the photographers when you needed more than one in five pictures to turn out sharpish/decently exposed/pointed in the right direction and without a thumb over the lens or flash. Now people do take thousands of shots a year... and almost every member of the family has a camera. Owing to nothing but probability out of the thousands and thousands of shots an extended family takes and distributes over facebook/email everyone is going to get at least monthly updates of everyone else so maybe we don't feel the NEED for expensive portraits anymore. My grandmother doesn't actually LIKE family portraits etc.. she would much rather have pics of her grand-kids covered in mud/cake/paint having fun... but formal portraits where all you had back then.

Jun 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Rob Chisholm
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #2 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

I spend a whole lot of time defending professional photographers. I think that making a living with photography is very difficult, and I admire those with the courage, dedication and talent able to make it work. I think that photographers should get paid for their work and not give away their work for free. I have found that people seem to value a service or product if they have to pay for it; Conversely, a free photo (no matter how beautiful) is worthless to them, and, by extension, all photos should/could be cheap or free.

When I started taking photographs, and I am not a bad photographer, I used to enjoy taking photos of friends, spending time editing those photos and then gifting them to people. Granted, these are the same friends who, after seeing photos on my website or prints on the walls, would ask repeatedly for pictures. In the beginning, of course, this was all very flattering, and I would happily put in a whole lot of work getting them professional class results.

After several shoots where there was no "thank you's" ever offered (which I did not expect, as the shoots were gratis, but they would have been nice), one thinks "well they must not have liked the work." Then, when you see the photos printed huge on their walls, and hear people talk at social gatherings about how nice a group of photos are (and knowing you took them), the lack of gratitude makes you realize that these people believe that any talentless hack with a camera could take then same beautiful photo. And that is truly what people think of something they get for free. That anyone could provide the same result. Sad.

So, I will always defend the photographer, especially you pro's who really provide an amazing service and product.

Now, for all the ya-hoos beating up on the other "professionals". Look, I am a physician. I have worked long and hard to become a doctor. I bust my hump on a daily basis to practise the best medicine possible. And no, I've never been sued, and I deal with very, very sick people (and all people do eventually die, and bad outcomes do occur to really good people, even when "everything is done right"). People do not pay me because any idiot with a prescription pad and a license can write for antibiotics for your kid's ear infection. People come to me because I can diagnose and treat life threatening conditions, quickly and decisively. Medicine is not like the TV shows, not like the books, and definitely not like wikipedia and the internet. So, until you have walked in my shoes, please stop bashing my profession. I certainly do not bash yours. -_Rob

Jun 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #3 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

SmegHead wrote:
Do you think that the waning interest in professional photo's could be due to the fact that thirty years ago, Gram and Gramps might only see their grown grand-kids a couple time a year if they live any distance away so families invested in high quality... or at least high cost photography more and more to keep everyone up to date. People didn't shoot thousands of photos a year... my grandmother would frequently have a roll developed that started on Christmas and ended the next thanksgiving... all ready for a fresh yearly roll at Christmas again. Only a few members...Show more →

I really do think it's the prevalence of easy-to-use, cheap, digital photography (point and shoot more than DSLR) that has driven the cost of professional portraiture and formal photography down.

Jun 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Lance Couture
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #4 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

dhphoto wrote:
No, I said I had lost clients to people who would work for peanuts. I don't negotiate my prices, but that's my choice. They quite often come back when the get cr@p from the new guy.

This is exactly the same as in the IT industry.

With the rise of the Internet, those of us who were consultants had to compete with a wave of every pimple-faced teenager who had run a virus scan on his mommy's computer calling himself an "IT Consultant".

I lost many clients to these kids, simply b/c they were willing to work for $20/hr rather than usual $80-100.

Sure enough, after about a year, I would eventually gain back every client b/c these kids had absolutely no clue wtf was going on, and invariable turned things into a train wreck, or had no idea what to do if a major meltdown occurred.

The unfortunate thing about photography is that people generally have only one wedding, one graduation, etc, etc - its not usually a repeat business. The lost opportunity is difficult to recover from when it happens repeatedly, or people value the work less b/c person X will do it for much less.

My clients eventually had to learn the hard way that "you get what you pay for".

Jun 14, 2009 at 04:09 PM

episkonte
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #5 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

I'm coming into this thread kinda late, but I gotta say #2 seems to be the equivalent of comparing the size of your "junk" (I'm not sure how explicit we're allowed to be here on FM) to another guy's. It's completely unnecessary. Like others have said, what's important is how the photographs turn out, not who has the more expensive looking gear. I've seen plenty of pros with thousands of dollars in photography equipment that take lackluster photos IMO.

As far as #3, the client will be the one who suffers in the long term. And in the situation that the rich uncle takes photographs that the client loves, I suppose it doesn't matter that they didn't go with a pro.

Jun 14, 2009 at 04:20 PM

oajlu
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #6 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

episkonte wrote:
I'm coming into this thread kinda late, but I gotta say #2 seems to be the equivalent of comparing the size of your "junk".

top gears doesnt guarantee good photo, but it can increase the chance of getting good result.
for a photographer, the result he gets from xxd/xxxd is not as consistent as 1D series. A photographers could get 500 good photos from 1D, but probably only 100 good result from xxd in the same event.

if gears do not matter, then how come most successful/commerical/sport photographers shot with decent equipments?

of course, top gears wouldnt make someone a good photographers, but bad gear would only make him a worse photographer.

Jun 14, 2009 at 06:03 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #7 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

Now people do take thousands of shots a year... and almost every member of the family has a camera. Owing to nothing but probability out of the thousands and thousands of shots an extended family takes and distributes over facebook/email everyone is going to get at least monthly updates of everyone else so maybe we don't feel the NEED for expensive portraits anymore.

While there are thousands of pics being taken, from what I can see they are predominantly "throw away" pictures that don't find their way into any medium from which they're likely to be viewed 10, 20, or 50 years hence.

I don't mean that they have to be printed--they could be saved and viewed digitally. But those people aren't maintaining any kind of reasonable digital asset management, so they're not going to be available 10, 20, or 50 years from now even digitally.

Jun 14, 2009 at 06:04 PM

episkonte
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #8 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

oajlu wrote:
top gears doesnt guarantee good photo, but it can increase the chance of getting good result.
for a photographer, the result he gets from xxd/xxxd is not as consistent as 1D series. A photographers could get 500 good photos from 1D, but probably only 100 good result from xxd in the same event.

if gears do not matter, then how come most successful/commerical/sport photographers shot with decent equipments?

I never said the gear doesn't matter. I just have argument with the comment that "Photographers need to show their expertise by showing off their gear". Photographers should be showing off their expertise by the quality of the photos they're taking, not by how much they have in their bank account to indulge in the newest gear. It'd be like assuming anyone who can buy an expensive car is capable of driving in professional motor sports.

If Rich Timmy has better gear than you, but is a worse photographer then why feel compelled to outspend him?

of course, top gears wouldnt make someone a good photographers, but bad gear would only make him a worse photographer.

I know what you're saying, but I also think it's important to note that being forced to work with worse gear can actually make someone a better/more resourceful photographer. Using that knowledge and applying it to better gear will make their output stronger than someone who just buys himself out of limitations from the getgo in my opinion.

Jun 14, 2009 at 07:16 PM

globalkiwi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #9 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

RDKirk wrote:
While there are thousands of pics being taken, from what I can see they are predominantly "throw away" pictures that don't find their way into any medium from which they're likely to be viewed 10, 20, or 50 years hence.

I don't mean that they have to be printed--they could be saved and viewed digitally. But those people aren't maintaining any kind of reasonable digital asset management, so they're not going to be available 10, 20, or 50 years from now even digitally.

I think this is a really important point. I just inherited a portion of my late father's slide collection (other parts of it are with a professional image service) many of which date from the 40's & 50's. Most people I know, even quite serious amateur photographers, have no real image management system at all & often can't lay their hands (or mouse) on pictures they took 5 years ago. Likewise, I can't remember how many times people have mentioned that they lost all their pictures when their last computer died.

We are certainly becoming a more visual society & photography (for better or for worse) has been thoroughly democratized by the advent of cheap digital cameras - but the lifespan of these images is fleeting - certainly far shorter than in the days of film.

Jun 14, 2009 at 08:17 PM

n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #10 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

globalkiwi wrote:
...but the lifespan of these images is fleeting - certainly far shorter than in the days of film.

One can argue that it's only because personal home computers hadn't really gone mainstream until Windows95 came along, and even then a lot of people still resisted it, so it's not that much older than digital cameras either.

How many people here know what RAID is?

Jun 14, 2009 at 08:36 PM

episkonte
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #11 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

Just my opinion, but I think the lifespan of images being shortened has more to do with the photographs being digital than it does with the user's knowledge of storage media. Digital photography, by virtue of being cheaper in the long run, has made the number of photographs captured increase and the difference between the number of quality photographs to poor photographs increase as a result, as well. This isn't a bad thing, but it means that more of the photos taken aren't really going to be so indispensable that the average user is going to take the time to archive the originals in multiple places.

Also consider the fact that social networking sites and photograph sharing sites are so ubiquitous these days that even if the average user doesn't have the original they can count on their treasured photos being archived on a variety of websites. Of course I'm not talking about most of the photographers on this forum, but amateur photographers in general. Even if people were mandated to take a class on proper digital archival techniques in high school, the number of people actually going through the process to save the numerous forgettable photographs taken would probably be minimal.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Jun 14, 2009 at 09:23 PM

globalkiwi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #12 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

n0b0 wrote:
One can argue that it's only because personal home computers hadn't really gone mainstream until Windows95 came along, and even then a lot of people still resisted it, so it's not that much older than digital cameras either.

How many people here know what RAID is?

No, I agree the home PC/Mac is in some respects a prerequisite for the DP&S or DSLR revolution but regardless of where one attributes cause, the effect is the same. Shortened life span of the image - which maybe (just a maybe) also relates to the fact that fewer people seem willing to pay a professional to produce high quality images for them.

Jun 14, 2009 at 09:30 PM

n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #13 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

I think you're right about quantity of photos being taken and online social networking sites and I'd like to add online galleries/archives like Flickr, smugmug, etc.

That said, I wrote my earlier post because globalkiwi mentioned serious amateur having problem with image management. I should probably have quoted all his post. I'll remedy that right now.

Jun 14, 2009 at 09:32 PM

globalkiwi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #14 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

no need, those who care can scroll up a couple.

Jun 14, 2009 at 10:19 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #15 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

I really do think it's the prevalence of easy-to-use, cheap, digital photography (point and shoot more than DSLR) that has driven the cost of professional portraiture and formal photography down.

Not at all, and professional portraiture and formal portraiture is what I do. More family snapshots does not intrude into my business. While millions of people are using taking a lot of pictures on their cellphones and with DSLRs, that does not touch wall portrait marketing.

On the low end, the dangers are still the high volume dealers like Wal-mart, Olin Mills, Sears and such. On the high end, my competition are interior decorators, Lexus, and Rolex.

Jun 15, 2009 at 06:41 AM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #16 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

Also consider the fact that social networking sites and photograph sharing sites are so ubiquitous these days that even if the average user doesn't have the original they can count on their treasured photos being archived on a variety of websites..

What? Is anyone really putting their family images on sharing sites and expecting them to still be available 30 years from now? If they think those sites are reliable "archives," they will be sadly mistaken.

Jun 15, 2009 at 06:47 AM

SmegHead
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #17 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

I don't see any reason why Flickr won't be there in one form or another in 30 years. It's backed by some serious money and I don't think anything short of a serious shift away from the internet as a whole will get rid of it. It's certainly a better bet than my dad putting a box of slides away in the basement or garage. Between vermin, mould, mildew, flooding, misplacement, moving and house fires etc I'm sure a LOT of slides and photo's from the last 50 years have been lost forever. But through the shear volume of copies that can exist for digital files I think they have a much better chance of surviving. I have copies on my photo's on at least 2 hard drives at home, DVD back up, flickr, facebook etc. Some people will argue, "Well... you still need to be able to view these files in a 100 years... what if technology changes?"... well.. how many people have 8mm or slide projectors and screens now adays? Yes you can get slides printed, but I have 5 boxes of slides at home from my childhood and I have NO idea what's on them and couldn't find a specific one to save my life... the only good option is to convert them to digital

Jun 15, 2009 at 08:08 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #18 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

SmegHead wrote:
I don't see any reason why Flickr won't be there in one form or another in 30 years. It's backed by some serious money and I don't think anything short of a serious shift away from the internet as a whole will get rid of it. It's certainly a better bet than my dad putting a box of slides away in the basement or garage. Between vermin, mould, mildew, flooding, misplacement, moving and house fires etc I'm sure a LOT of slides and photo's from the last 50 years have been lost forever. But through the shear volume of copies...Show more →

Not only that, but old digital formats are easier to use than old analog formats. The software I'm using now can easily be emulated and used to make whatever conversion fits the bill 50 years from now, if need be. Analog formats still require machines to be built/maintained.

Jun 15, 2009 at 09:40 AM

nathanlake
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #19 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

That is one of the great things about standard file formats. A hundred years from now someone can find a JPG, a TIFF, even a RAW file, look up the file specs and write software to open the files. No hardware changes...just some lines of code.

Jun 15, 2009 at 10:31 AM

SmegHead
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #20 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?

and Adobe is making it even easier with its DNG format.. It's a good idea if it catches on, I know some people use it religiously, I'm still on the fence. But if DNG does become the Raw standard 100 years from now it will be even easier to access old raw files. Unfortunately because it's up to the individual photographer to make the conversion many people can't be bothered. It will probably take one of the big guys adopting it as a native format on camera for it to really be effective... or at least give the option, kind of like most camera's will let you choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB on camera.

Jun 15, 2009 at 10:50 AM

1 2 3 … 9 10 11 12 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 12 end