Self Taught Photographers / Discuss

Andrew (SDC)    says:

I've been wondering the same thing.

Another issue now days is what is the technical aspect of photography...

In the "old school", one needed Darkroom skills, with a little bit of chemistry knowledge, and allot of time and money to "Master" the trade.

Today, the "Dark Room" is any room or couch or place where you can run your computer.

The skills needed today are knowing how to use your camera and then the editing software.

It seems that the chemistry of the past is the knowledge of the application, which seems to lead to “What is creative these days?”

What is the difference between a Jackson Pollock and someone forgetting that their camera is on “bulb”?
(Please don’t flame me on this, I’m just trying to make a point.)

Shakespeare did not have a word processor, but he used the same words as any modern person in front of their computer.

Both traditional and digital folks use the same light and we seemed to have traded hours in a darkroom for hours reading manuals...

I do not think there will ever be a good answer because it all seems to come down to "What is art?" or "What is photography?"

Capturing the "moment" is what is key, whether from a high end camera to a cell phone.

Just my two cents…

- Andrew
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Ron Pettitt    says:

I don't think the standard has dropped really. The cameras don't take pictures by themselves, you need a photographer to compose and press the button ultimately. The average joe who goes and buys a digital camera will, in most cases, take average joe type pictures......snapshots. This is certainly ok if you are taking shots of your weekend parties, or want snaps of your vacations and such, but for quality images, you still need skill and experience. The camera is merely a tool, not a magical device that guarantees quality images to all who pick them up.

Cameras can have all the auto settings they want, but they can't set perspective or compose photographs. That's where knowledge comes in. We, as photographers develop these skills and employ them to make photographs. It isn't just pointing a camera at a subject and pressing a button.

I have seen people buy an SLR camera and in a couple of months think they can go around selling stuff and shooting weddings just because they have this expensive camera. In my opinion, those people will soon find out that it takes much more than that to produce high quality images. They will either get weeded out or be forced to get much better fast. People won't pay good money for crappy product for long. Word will get out. The good photographers will still rise to the top, like always.

You mention cost. Do you really think digital is cheaper? I never paid thousands of dollars for a film SLR camera. A few hundred dollars, even in those days set you up with a very usable kit. Today, you can pay let's say $1000 for a decent DSLR, for quality lenses count on $1000, give or take. So, for a camera and three good lenses, you now have over $4000 invested (that isn't even counting the photo-editing software you'll need). You can have a lot of film developed for that. The only differences are that with digital, you pay up front, no photo processing, but huge outlay in the beginning.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
Ron Pettitt edited this topic 22 months ago.

Andrew (SDC)    says:

@ Ron -

You make valid points across the board, but...

Someone is at an event, a space ship comes out of the sky and lands... All that are around are cell phones... Images are captured and hit the internet... "Snap Shot" wins Pulitzer prize... (Extreme case...)

As for costs, I total agree that high end digital cameras cost a ton, but hark back to the darkroom...
(When I win the lottery, I’m buying a EOS-1Ds Mark III! tee hee…)

Finding a space... Converting it (plumbing, electric, etc.)... Enlargers, lights, trays, etc... Paper, chemicals, etc.

Years ago, I remember buying "bricks" of film... maybe a $200+ a brick for maybe 700 images (if you’re lucky)... (Yes, I have "rolled" my own...)

Then development costs... Time at the lab... Test rolls... Is the chemistry warmed up? etc. Is the emulsion lot the same?

The waste! You have to admitted that traditional is NOT a Green activity...

Now days, how many memory cards and images captured for the same amount of money?

Trust me, I am NOT saying your wrong, but I think that once you are setup digitally, the long term cost are cheaper.

- Andrew
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
Andrew (SDC) edited this topic 22 months ago.

lamar.francois (catching up)    says:

Wouldn't say the overall standard is falling - the cream will always rise to the top so as to speak. Point taken though - as many Facebook albums show , for some people not being limited to 36 on a roll of film doesn't help their photography at all ;)

Definitely agree with your points regarding too much automation in DSLRs , I know one person I spoke to who recently got a D5000 described it as a "computer which can take pictures" . My cameras are set up manually - I don't really like the idea of having a meter and AF decide everything on a shutter press.But that's always been the case with a lot of newer film cameras?

As for overall cost outlay - I'd say the obsolescence of a digital camera makes up for the cost of developing and buying up film. A 1980s film SLR is still good today , but a 1999 Nikon D1 is completely outmoded.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

I agree that the Digi-Cams get "old" quickly!

Way back when, I used a Nikon F-1, which was a work horse, then I moved to Canon, and I still have my AE-1 and F-1 (my A-1 went for a swim when the neck strap broke...)

I do love the fact that one can switch ISO in "mid-roll" with the Digital, and I have done it with traditional, and I also love the auto-bracket with one “click”, but I do miss the standard split screen focus, especially in low light. (my XTi does not allow me to switch focus screens, but some of the higher end one do)

As for Facebook as a image "gallery", FB for social memories not “artistic” content (Yes, photographers show their work on FB, but I have to wonder if they get the same audience). In some of the groups on Flickr you will see the same ‘snap-shoot’ images, but not nearly as bad (so far).

What has also been lost is the mechanics of how-to do photography…

Example: Ansel Adams...

He researched, developed and perfected the "Zone System" and made it a true Art, but that same knowledge has been lost through plug-ins and sliders.

Are the images any better? That is another debate…
Is a better “quality” image easier? Definitely, but this could be another case of right tool in the wrong hands.

I do miss the days of anticipation as your film comes out of the final water bath, and then unrolling the film to get your first view of a great negative.

I'm on the fence about HDR, which I'm just getting into.

It is a great step forward into capturing of the impossible, but the dark room side of me thinks it kind of "cheating". (Again, don't flame me... some of the HDR stuff that I have seen is amazing!)

- Andrew
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

We are discussing the average standard, I agree that there is no fall in standards at the top. There definitely are however cowboys and Uncle Bobs out there doing a crap job and letting the side down.

As to costs yes, with obsolescence of equipment you will rarely see much of your initial investment out of it, but you have admit that certain SLRs from that era are still capable, I currently shoot a camera from the early 00's.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

D:> D.H.LEE    says:

While I think a digital format has removed a good portion of the original concerns from film photography, I think that the costs have changed in other ways. What may be involved with lowering costs for the professional is equipment that is more versatile. You still need a decent processor for postprod, and legitimate high-end software still costs an arm and a leg.

I don't see the computer to be as much of an issue just because people need a high-end machine for other things as well, kind of like how dentists and scientists had high-end macro equipment that was as good as the stuff the studio shooters use. Software changes and I'm sure chemical processes did for certain films too. The pros will just end up putting the money elsewhere for the money change,most likely either into larger formats, higher-end glass, or better postprod in general.

Edit: I was typing this up right before I saw ciao's entry and as to that new crop of digital shooters, I still can't see it being too much different. It's not like film was exclusively an art for specific artists. I think certain elements make things easier now since newer tech makes things a lot easier for shooters than older tech, but somehow I can't help but think some circle of shooters was doing the same thing when they discovered that autofocus was coming around.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
D:> D.H.LEE edited this topic 22 months ago.

Michael Costolo    says:

One benefit of digital photography is the dropping costs involved

That's a common assumption. I'm not so sure it's backed up by facts though.

Furthermore the capacity of memory cards and the speed at which results can be seen means that very little skill is needed

/me nods head in agreement. Vigorously.

has average standard of photography dropped thanks to digital?

I think the average standard of photographer has dropped, significantly, if that's what you meant.

have we on the whole become less creative as we no longer need to think about taking pictures?

I see plenty of creativity, most of it, unfortunately, in applying Photoshop filters.

Trust me, I am NOT saying your wrong, but I think that once you are setup digitally, the long term cost are cheaper.

You're comparing costs from 10+ years ago to today. I'm not sure that's realistic. Enlargers, trays, paper, chemicals, those are all pretty darn cheap. Even free sometimes. Film developing isn't terribly expensive either if you do it yourself. Self developing 4x5 B&W film brings the price per image down dramatically.

Obviously the cost per image is easier to define with film. But for me it has never been about cost. If it had, I wouldn't have had the 8x10 made.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

lastokov    says:

As far as the standard for photography dropping, what people aren't taking into account is the whole Flickr phenomenon. I think that people have greater access to view other people's snapshots. If you look at what true professionals are producing, there is plenty of quality there even compared to the masters. There may be an influx in semi-pros and amateurs doing some minor work for pay, but I doubt that it is going to have any affect on the professional market per se. I have boxes and boxes of photos taken with disposable film cameras of birthdays, vacations, and the like. Difference is, they are not up on Flickr for the world to see.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

How do folks define a "Pro" photographer these days?

Is it the percentage of income from photos?
- i.e. Is a "stock" photographer a "Pro"?

I'm curious to hear what folks have to say...

(please forgive me if this topic has already been beaten to death some where else... got URL?)
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Laurence Dunford    says:

Its tricky, but I would define a pro photographer as someone who makes a significate amount of money from photography. Enough to fund their livestyle.

I'm not sure if digital as devaluated photography as a whole. I picked up my first digital SLR camera a few years back (was planning a holiday in Japan at the time and wanted some great pictures), enjoyed using and became interested in photography. Through this I began using more and more film.

Shooting film has helped me to think more about the sort of image I want to capture, and I definitely spend more time thinking about composition.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

nekyami says:

The film vs digital battle continues. At the beginnings of photography, painters and other artists did not consider photographers artists, but the craft evolved and became accepted. Snobbery and jealousy is rampant in the professional world. A pro who has spent decades learning f stops apertures, lighting, etc hates it when a complete novice picks up a digital camera and sets it to auto hits the shutter and some quite acceptable photos appear. That's what happened to me. Digital opened up the world of photography to me and I have actually been paid for product photography. Check this out.
www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30photogs.html?
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

rushfan2112 (Late Developer)    says:

It depends on what you mean by the term "devalued".

Yesterday, I was in a small, independent, camera shop owned and run by a professional wedding, portrait and commercial photographer.

A nice young, recently-married couple came in and asked about an invoice that their in-laws had been sent for their wedding photos. They'd been quoted a price which had increased by £200 or so and they wanted to know why.

The booking had been taken on the basis that the photographer would take and produce a specific number of photographs. He'd just about halved his rate as a special favour. When at the wedding, the in-laws insisted he take this shot and that shot. To avoid any confrontation, he ended up taking about the same number of shots he would take at a standard booking.

Bearing in mind the financial circumstances, he didn't charge the full rate and sent the invoice for the higher (but still heavily discounted) amount.

The upshot is that the family seemed to believe that all a professional photographer does is takes photos on his digital camera, prints them and puts them in an album. Never mind all the colour correction, sharpening, cropping, re-touching, etc. An extra 30-40 photos was worth only the £10-20 they'd pay to have them produced at a photo processing lab.

The family did not understand that following a wedding, you can spend many hours getting the end product perfect.

The misconception seems to be two-fold. Firstly, that anyone holding a half-decent digital camera (not even a DSLR) is a "photographer" and capable of taking photos every bit as good as a professional. Secondly, that digital = lightning quick and little effort.

In the days before digital, we all knew how long it would take to get a film processed, printed and returned. Then came photo-processing booths (yuk....!). The whole process has been dumbed down and, along the way, we have been conditioned into accepting lower standards.

If you don't believe me, get one of your best photos machine printed to 20x16 inches by a commercial lab and then go and compare it against an exhibition print by an eminent photographer. The difference, these days, is startling. 25 years ago, it was noticeable but less dramatic.

None of this is about the ability to take photographs. That skill has always been very subjective and largely in short supply. It's the end result that is devalued both in terms of the level of quality we are prepared to accept and the price we are prepared to pay for it.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

ArUK5 says:

in its initial stages digital cameras took pictures which were nothing when compared to film. but in recent years digital cameras have improved a lot and some of them click images which are far superior to film. There are people who argue that no matter what digital cameras can never get the organic look of film but then some will argue that its not true


From my point of view one thing which i will say is that digital cameras are more convenient and cheaper than film and photography is accessible to all and not to an elite class when it was under film [during the days of film to become a professional it used to cost a fortune to set up your own gear and studio as compared to digital where you just need to invest in a good dslr and computer and its certainly cheaper than from a film point of view].

from an environmental point of view digital cameras are better than film. to create a single roll of 35mm [36 exposures] you need to use lots of chemicals and rawmaterials and after exposing the film it has to be developed in the lab using more chemicals. Most of these chemicals are not biodregable or eco friendly. Imagine ever since film got created tonnes and tonnes of harmful chemicals have got released into the environment. Now compare that with digital. a small 4gb memory card can store anywhere between 200 raw snaps and 1000s of jpegs and these cards can be re used again and again 100s of times! Another point. if you are doing a shoot imagine the time you save when you click 1000s of images using a single memory card as compared to film where you will have to replace the film after every 36 exposures

Almost every major professional photographer has switched to digital for various reasons. Yes there are some old school photographers who still use film for their shoots but they are a minority these days
so from a monetary, convenience, environment and time point of view digital has actually added value to photography


from a creative point of view some could argue that digital has devalued photography for due to its offering a sheer convenience as compared to film some ppl have taken photography for granted and dont put in sincere efforts to click some great pics. The fact that attaining great shots using film was not that easy the photographer used to think creatively to ensure they get the shot right. The lack of convenience and the time factor made the photographer to strive hard to click great pics. This aspect has gone down ever since digital took over and some would argue photographers have either become too lazy or incompetent due to the convenience of the digital and are not striving that hard to click great pics as compared to the times when film was used.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
ArUK5 edited this topic 22 months ago.

ciao_chao    says:

The misconception seems to be two-fold. Firstly, that anyone holding a half-decent digital camera (not even a DSLR) is a "photographer" and capable of taking photos every bit as good as a professional. Secondly, that digital = lightning quick and little effort.

Too true, I think the typical of the whole wal-mark/tesco society now. People don't want masterpieces, just want a product quickly and cheaply.
********************************
That's a common assumption. I'm not so sure it's backed up by facts though.

When you take into account the aforementioned misconception, it often becomes the case
*******************************
In reference to the "old school", I would like to refer more to the philosophy behind photography. When photographers took more time and care. Rather than putting a few thousand image in card in the hope of getting a good one.

While digital shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, but photographers need to be aware that it's much easier to get carried away.

And the same thing does for automation. There are times when AI/servo/continuous AF is very useful, and there are times when Av/Tv AE is useful, but scene modes, and "intelligent" AF seems to be going to far, particularly on a serious camera.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Hutjeflut says:

awww lets all have a moment of silece for the old fashion film shooters who got hit by a bus thats called digital photography wich is now finaly afordable for everyone.

but yes the average standard has gotten lower but this is to be expected as before worldwide maby 100.000 people could call themselfs a pro and made enough money to get a good camera and work with it no theres billions of camera's out there and people take a lot more photo's.

in the end theres still the same amount of good shots (not% wise but thats not relevant anyway)as the ''pro's havent gotten any worse and the gear only got better.

yes some pros might be pissed as they dont make as much money anymore but hey 10 years ago people payed me 200+ euro to fix a computer wich took me 2 hours now they do it themselves as theres software outthere that they can run and it cleans there pc or they simply reinstall it themselves as its a lot easyer now.

as for creativity theres plenty outthere i just know that i dont have it im simply not a creative thinker when it comes to photography.
then again i only shoot shots of nature simply because i like it and i dont have to make money with it.

in the end times change and this is a result thats not at al a bad result as photography and the immages are now affordable for everyone.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
Hutjeflut edited this topic 22 months ago.

D:> D.H.LEE    says:

In reference to the "old school", I would like to refer more to the philosophy behind photography. When photographers took more time and care. Rather than putting a few thousand image in card in the hope of getting a good one.

While certain lines of work have no doubt changed with this (I'm thinking press events, personally), I don't really see it changing too much for folks who work studios or who use lighting for their shooting since the limitations of power settings and cycle times means at least some prep work in order to get the good shot without waiting to get the shot again and forcing your subjects to hold their position.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

- "Shooting film has helped me to think more about the sort of image I want to capture, and I definitely spend more time thinking about composition."

I'm right there with you! If more photogs took that extra little time (myself included), their images would be just that better!

- Very much agreed! One has to thank the members of the orginal Group f/64 for advancing Photography to and art form!

- Great story and comments!

- "no matter what digital cameras can never get the organic look of film"

The great "vinyl vs. digital" debate! I do know that as I have convert my Kodachrome slides to digital, I do see the grain (no surprise), but when I try and submit them to the Stock Houses, they are normally rejected... LR3 has a greatly improved "noise" filter, which I have to go back and try/resubmit.

"Most of these chemicals are not biodregable or eco friendly. Imagine ever since film got created tonnes and tonnes of harmful chemicals have got released into the environment."

My point extactly! And now that I have kids, I don't need/want those chemicals around...

"Almost every major professional photographer has switched to digital for various reasons. Yes there are some old school photographers who still use film for their shoots but they are a minority these days"

Very true, but there is a cost... I think we all can remember the infamous "still" shot of then President Clinton hugging Monica Lewinsky... Somewhere I read that the only reason this "still" is so "famous" is because the photograher that took the shot, was using film, and everyone else was digital, and erased their cards, thinking it was a non event...

"awww lets all have a moment of silece for the old fashion film shooters who got hit by a bus"

Guess they were too busy changing rolls... (Sorry, that was just sitting there... waiting...)

"10 years ago people payed me 200+ euro to fix a computer wich took me 2 hours now they do it themselves as theres software outthere that they can run and it cleans there pc or they simply reinstall it themselves as its a lot easyer now."

Amen! I am right there with you on that one!
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

awww lets all have a moment of silece for the old fashion film shooters who got hit by a bus thats called digital photography wich is now finaly afordable for everyone.

Are you implying that only the rich were able to be photographers in the film-dominant days?
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

rushfan2112 (Late Developer)    says:

"awww lets all have a moment of silece for the old fashion film shooters who got hit by a bus"

How utterly patronising.

Most professionals switched to digital once it achieved critical mass and not because of any quality improvement it offered. It has distinct operational advantages - such as the ability to check results as you go along and no requirement for darkrooms and chemicals.

However, professionals are a fraction of the number of photographers in the world. The almost total switch to digital is a matter of simple economics on the part of camera manufacturers. Those companies, like Minolta, who tried to satisfy both camps ended up losing out big time.

Nikon and Canon saw the writing on the wall early and drove the market the way they wanted it. We now have an oligopoly situation and we get what we are given.

Don't get me wrong. I have a D300, D700 and Lumix LX3 and thoroughly enjoy using them. However, what sickens me is the subservience of the masses who allow themselves to be led by the nose in whatever direction the dictators of fashion take them.

There's a generation of people now who wouldn't know how to load a film camera or what a proper chemical print looks like. The same people wouldn't have a clue about a vinyl album and who make do with CDs or, worse still, downloads from the internet.

Convenience and speed have their places, of course, but the cost must not be quality or the loss of knowledge or skill. Film is not old fashioned - nor is respect for those who prefer to use traditional methods to achieve their enjoyment instead of simply jumping on the latest band-wagon as it comes by. There's plenty of room for both film and digital if manufacturers and photographers would but realise it.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

- "Are you implying that only the rich were able to be photographers in the film-dominant days? "

In the very EARLY day of Photography, yes!

They were the only ones that could afford the equipment and time!

- "professionals are a fraction of the number of photographers in the world"

When I worked at Kodak, I heard that the Professional market only accounts for 3-5% of ALL photos taken, and that is what George Eastman was after!

"There's a generation of people now who wouldn't know how to load a film camera or what a proper chemical print looks like. The same people wouldn't have a clue about a vinyl album and who make do with CDs or, worse still, downloads from the internet."

"nor is respect for those who prefer to use traditional methods to achieve their enjoyment instead of simply jumping on the latest band-wagon as it comes by."

rushfan2112 (Late Developer)    says:

Seymour. I agree that my body is becoming old but my mind is as sharp as a .....what's that thing that's really sharp again? Time for a cup of..... something......bromoil maybe? Now, where did I leave my keys......
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

- LOL!

My wife keeps telling me I'm old as dirt and I listen to dinosaur rock (60s -70s)....
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of age bracket are we all in? I feel that most of you are seasoned veterans at this.

Would also be interesting how long people have been photographing?
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Hutjeflut says:

yes im implying that 10 years ago people with a minimum/average wage could nor afford a DSLR infact i can still only barely get a entry level dslr and the l;enses are just to fecking expencive.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

In the very EARLY day of Photography, yes!

They were the only ones that could afford the equipment and time!

Agreed. But that was long ago and prices had dropped dramatically since. I distinctly remember having cameras before digital ones were available, and I'm far from rich.

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of age bracket are we all in?

37

Would also be interesting how long people have been photographing?

Since I was a kid. Seriously for the last ~5 years. That's when I started playing with these. Selling and installing work for the last three years.

Andrew (SDC)    says:

46 over here... I think my first "camera" used 110 film cartridges, so since the early 70s... (Does this mean I can say "over a century?)...
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

rushfan2112 (Late Developer)    says:

Other than my 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor, all my lense will fit Nikon film cameras. I used to have an F5 and an F100 but swapped for a Canon F1-N as I'd always wanted one of those.

Aside from everything else, I can pick up a mint minus F5 for $300 (£250) which, if I use some Velvia or good quality film, will produce results as good as any DSLR for a fraction of the price and have that analogue "feel" to-boot.

What Hutjeflut and the rest of the digi-converts are missing is that to get a DSLR that produces anything remotely similar to the quality of ANY film camera will cost £1,800 + because in the old days the FILM was the defining medium - NOT the sensor.

As for age, I'm 49 going on 17. I don't subscribe to all that bollocks about growing up; the only people that do are the young - and they have much to learn. Unfortunately, if they get their way and the old technology disappears, there will be nothing to learn and the world will be a sadder place than it is now.

Celebrate diversity and to buggery with marketeers........
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

Little of topic, but...

- What made you convert from Nikon to Canon?

For me, at the time, if your battery died, on a Nikon F-3, you had one shutter speed (1/60?), while on the Canon F-1, you had 1/60-1/2000, so you were "not dead in the water"...

Plus the cost difference between the two...
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Jay D. Kilgore says:

I don't think the cheaper cameras and influx of new photographers have killed the industry, I think professionals worried about this, is what killed it.

I LOVE the influx and increase of "professional photographers" the digital era is bringing! Why do I love them? simple; the more that are out there, the better I look! If these new guys are taking as good or better photos than I am, then I need to put my camera down.

My imagery is NOT created by my camera or even photoshop. My work is created by the connection I have with my clients, followed by the technical things.

Those who are worried about the increase in "photographers" are the ones that are killing the business. I'm not saying the op or anyone who posted is one of those guys, but it needs to be stated that those people who keep their heads down and don't worry about what the MWAC is doing, are the ones who are still successful.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

Which makes me the baby of the group...22 and shooting seriously for 1.5 years.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

Remember the Time magazine cover from April of 2009? They paid $30 through iStockPhoto. The photographer got $12. And he was thrilled to get it.

That ain't helping.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

A.L. Marquardt    says:

By the same token, Michael, that photographer received national exposure for that photo, so there's a plus that may turn out extremely well in the long run.

Besides, the photographer posted the photo on iStockPhoto knowing he wouldn't get a big payment out of it.

To say that digital is devaluing photography is like saying mass-producing black-sable oil brushes to lower their price devalues painting. It's what a person does with the tool, not the tool itself -- as many here have already noted.

Still, I do find that because digital is so prevalent, the consumer has lost understanding that excellent photography still costs money, and don't take into consideration the amount of work it takes to really make a photo shine. Luckily around where I live, professional photographers are doing quite well, and people are willing to pay what they're worth.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

D:> D.H.LEE    says:

True, I would not blame the digital format for that costly faux pas as much as I would the photographer. To make things more fair, there really should be some sort of community that helps shooters understand their actual value rather than selling themselves for less than they're worth. I've been honestly looking for guides on proper rates myself and they are very few, very far between.

I blame the public's inability to understand pro rates on the fact that everyone originally based the greatness of their camera on how many megapixels it has. Now that everyone pretty much sticks to the same megapixel area, it's like they have no clue what else to base their knowledge on. It seems like Canon has understood that and has been keeping their megapixels above the 12 gap as a result despite their own admittance that you don't really need more megapixels out of their established sensor sizes at this point.

It may just be me, but I feel like the only other way most people seem to understand if something is good is if they buy into one of the big two brands or demands their shooter use only Canon 5Ds or Nikon D300s. Quite a kick in the pants for folks who appreciate lesser-known brands like myself.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
D:> D.H.LEE edited this topic 22 months ago.

ciao_chao    says:

I LOVE the influx and increase of "professional photographers" the digital era is bringing! Why do I love them? simple; the more that are out there, the better I look! If these new guys are taking as good or better photos than I am, then I need to put my camera down.

Makes a good point, but are you not concerned that from the general public's eye that the majority of photographers aren't to the high standard that you (or others here are at), and as a knock on effect it distances the photographic community from the public.

For example if you flooded the market with fake Rolex watches, the real Rolex is a bigger prize than ever, but only to one who seeks it out. To the untrained observer it merely is more of the same.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

By the same token, Michael, that photographer received national exposure for that photo, so there's a plus that may turn out extremely well in the long run.

He got exposure as a sucker; a chump who is helping to bring down prices for corporate clients. That will have been his 15 minutes of fame. I know a couple of pros who'd like to have him kneecapped.

And he didn't develop any customer interactions on that transaction to work future assignments or at least have the experience of working with a customer like Time. iStockPhoto did, though.

Still, I do find that because digital is so prevalent, the consumer has lost understanding that excellent photography still costs money, and don't take into consideration the amount of work it takes to really make a photo shine.

Well people are constantly bombarded with the argument that digital photography is "free." I wonder why they get the idea that the finished product should be cheap?

True, I would not blame the digital format for that costly faux pas as much as I would the photographer.

Problem is that every consumer electronics device has a camera now. And a surprisingly large percentage of people who own one think that they're pros.

How many people do you know that within days of getting their first digital SLR took a few nice snaps of their baby, were tickled with their results, and so talked about starting a business?

It doesn't matter who or what is to blame, there is a remarkable knowledge gap among people who self identify as photographers.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

D:> D.H.LEE    says:

While I definitely can see that, I think we all can also agree that just because you picked up a DSLR doesn't mean you have the skill to instantly take remarkable photos. Sadly, it's probably another reason why people only think you're a pro based on the size & price of your body.

People who instantly think of starting a business like that usually find there's a remarkable learning curve there, if not from understanding their device, then from learning the economics of running that business. This is all the more reason why I think the communities should offer more information on things like rates, commitment needed, etc.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
D:> D.H.LEE edited this topic 22 months ago.

Kalik001    says:

I really do think there is a built in arrogance for someone to say that the new DSLR photographer with no experience in SLR photography is in any way inferior in their ability and aspirations.

What gives you the right to say you are better than them because you started in the SLR days and somehow think you have a superior technique or ability?

I have a friend who just purchased their first camera a Nikon d90 (purchased by recommendation from me) and in only two years I would say is a far better photographer than myself whose first camera was a Polaroid back in the 70’s.

It’s all down to ability and the eye for the photo. All DSLR cameras have done is open the genera to more people and as in all walks of life the best will always float to the top.

This in built arrogance must stop or people will not enter the “Flickr world” we live in for fear of undue criticism.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
Kalik001 edited this topic 22 months ago.

michael+erica says:

Seymour Digital Consulting, if you are shooting with a DSLR you may stil be able to get a split screen, check out Katz Eye (http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/). I have one in my Nikon D200 and could not shoot digital without it.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

A.L. Marquardt    says:

Good points, Michael. Another question, though. Would not Time also be responsible for the same thing by seeking out iStockphoto instead of hiring a professional?

If I were a professional photographer who sells to magazines, I would have certainly lost respect for Time.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Andrew (SDC)    says:

-

"My imagery is NOT created by my camera or even photoshop. My work is created by the connection I have with my clients, followed by the technical things."

Very well said!

And that also seems to be the fundamental difference between the "Pros" and everyone else.

The photographer might have all the latest equipment, training and knowledge, but if the client is not happy...

Making the client happy is the hardest part!


-

We all had to start at some point!

But I do have a questions for the "younger" crowd in this group...

How many of you have actually used film?
How many of you have worked in a darkroom?

I'm not trying to put anyone down, but I'm curious to see/know if the traditional "stuff" is disappearing.


and -

Yes I remember that "issue"! It was a very Hot Topic on some of the Stock sites when it happened, and does open up a whole new set of issues and the Stock agencies offer more to their clients.

If I remember correctly, the general gist of the thread was that iStockPhoto should have "represented" the Photog a little bit better, but at the same time, to iStocks defense, they did was they were suppose to do. Time was the big winner... Sort of like trading a cell phone for a Porsche...

-

"the photographer posted the photo on iStockPhoto knowing he wouldn't get a big payment out of it."

Sorry had not seen your post yet, but that is what I meant in my comment above.

"the consumer has lost understanding that excellent photography still costs money, and don't take into consideration the amount of work it takes to really make a photo shine."

Very true!

People in general are bombarded with images, but they have no clue the effort that goes into them.

Like everything else, knowledge is key.

-

"To make things more fair, there really should be some sort of community that helps shooters understand their actual value rather than selling themselves for less than they're worth. I've been honestly looking for guides on proper rates myself and they are very few, very far between."

Maybe this is something this group can work on together?

I would be VERY interested in hearing what folks think/know along these lines!

"I blame the public's inability to understand pro rates..."

Well stated paragraph!

The same thing happen in the computer industry... The "more megahertz the better" was the mind set, but when it comes down to it, a CPU running at 3.0 MHz is going to type an email just as fast as a 1.0 MHz. (Now if your running PS and LR, then we are talking a different store...)

The current mind set is more "cores" the better, which in theory is correct, but the biggest problem, it that most apps have not converted over to a multi-core architecture, let alone 32 vs. 64 bit...

"Quite a kick in the pants for folks who appreciate lesser-known brands like myself."

Not sure where you are going with this one, but in some of the larger image companies, National Geo comes to mind, they have a "pool" of equipment that the staff can use for assignments, so having one brand reduces costs... (At least it use to be this way...)

-

"He got exposure as a sucker;..."

Good point, and maybe that is something that we ALL should take away as a "lessons learned".

I have recently gotten in to working with Stock House, and it can be VERY confusing, but I did find Microstock Diaries which has been rather helpful. Also get involved with the forums on a given site, and hope they are not too censored.

"How many people do you know that within days of getting their first digital SLR took a few nice snaps of their baby, were tickled with their results, and so talked about starting a business? "

Bingo! I could not agree more!

-

"This is all the more reason why I think the communities should offer more information on things like rates, commitment needed, etc. "

For the younger folks up here, if you can get an apprenticeship, DO SO, and it will help to figure all this out!

I was a freelance apprentice when I was younger, but got out of the biz for numerous years, and now trying to get back in, and this information on rates would be very valuable to me also!

Since my most recent "gigs" have generally been tech support, I generally charge a per hour fee, but the other day, after shooting an event, I had a designer ask my "half-day" rate, and I just froze...

What is a reasonable rate these days?

Again, maybe we start a new topic on this...

Anyone got a suggestion for the topic title?

-

"What gives you the right to say you are better than them because you started in the SLR days and somehow think you have a superior technique or ability?"

I do not believe that is what us old timers are saying.

In your illustration of your friend, he already had an "eye", which give him a head start.

"It’s all down to ability and the eye for the photo. All DSLR cameras have done is open the genera to more people and as in all walks of life the best will always float to the top."

Having an the "eye" is the point.

A person that is naturally artistic is going to do better then someone who doesn't.

The "eye" can, and should, be developed over time, and "client" tastes also change. A simple picture of a egg is going to be viewed differently by a farmer then a grocery store owner or a cook.

I believe what most people are saying is that "because I have spent all this money on a camera/equipment, that makes me a great photographer".

It can happen, but it is rare.

-

Thanks for the heads up on Katz Eye!

One of my clients has a warehouse that is "my studio" and it is poorly lit, so focusing is difficult at best, especially when capturing darker material.

There have been many a times that I have heard the "auto-focus" freak out, and have had to switch to manual, but...

-

Time, like all other print media is having it very rough these days, and I sure we have all read or experienced it.

The Internet is "winning" and we all are trying to adjust to the new digital age.

---

So endth my two cents for the day!

Have a good one and stay cool!


- Andrew
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Starling Lee Brown says:

Has digital devalued photography?

Absolutely not. Neither has it increased the value of photography.

The vast majority of images created since the beginning of the photographic age are crap (they do have meaning for the people who take them). The really outstanding (even good) ones are recognized as such because they are compared to the majority.

Film or digital doesn't matter.

What digital and the interweb has done is increase the number of shots made available for public viewing. The ratio of crap to gold has basically remained the same.

Most people (non-photographers) are perfectly happy when a photograph is just recognizable. They don't really care if it's art.

Time magazine is a buisness. They made a decision to use a stock photo that met their needs and got it for a good price. The photographer made the same choice many others have chosen to make, putting their images in a stock agency for possible sales. He did and it sold, end of story for him. Whether a good or bad choice was made, it's the one he made.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
Starling Lee Brown edited this topic 22 months ago.

Hutjeflut says:

What digital and the interweb has done is increase the number of shots made available for public viewing. The ratio of crap to gold has basically remained the same.

it also opened new options as tbh you couldnt really get iso 6400 on a film camera you couldnt really crop as much as you now can with the lastest 20+ mpix camera's you couldnt experiment as much because it was more expencive so you left out shots simply because you might waste a roll of film and develop costs.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
Hutjeflut edited this topic 22 months ago.

ciao_chao    says:

You make experimentation on digital sound like a straightforward and simple thing compared to film. Perhaps it is easier with instant results, but I would not say that the cost of film would put one off experimentation. Should one need to experiment with film, one would find a way.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

chris ( in awe of analogue ) says:

I shoot film exclusively. Ciao is right, you find a way. Obviously machine gunning is not the way to go, but if you're cunning it's more than affordable, especially since the gear is so cheap.

And yes, I regularly shoot in excess of 6400, no probs. I've shot ISO 25,000 on 35mm before.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

D:> D.H.LEE    says:

To be honest, I still hear that replication of noise still doesn't feel right in the digital/film transition. I can see some of what they're talking about, although my only experience with film was with an old Minolta 35mm rangefinder and some rolls of ISO200 film.

With regards to brands, it's not so much the ease of other shooters that becomes an issue on my end as much as it is convincing new clients that you can give them results they will like despite using equipment they never heard of. A fair amount of snobbery is involved as I've noticed a fair number of ads that won't even consider looking at your portfolio for consideration unless you carry a Canon 5D/full-frame Nikon and a set of f2.8 or faster glass.

Considering how these ads also tend to charge rates that would make people with less expensive bodies and kit snicker at, I can only imagine how successful their requests actually were anyway, though it wouldn't surprise me if it carries over in other places too.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
D:> D.H.LEE edited this topic 22 months ago.

ArUK5 says:

though digital cameras click great images one thing which is true is that from a technical point of view its just 0s and 1s and no matter what camera you use the fact remains digital converts the light into binary and even the best cameras lose out on some of the detail while in film there is no true conversion happening. it captures light as it is without any form of conversion
so under the concept of 'capturing light' film is still considered superior to digital and this is why it continues to be used for very very high end professional work though not on the scale it was once upon a time

on a mass level obviously digital has taken over and even among the professional level on a very very big level as today the medium of delivering pictures to the audience is also digital or electronic and it makes sense to shoot images in digital and transmit it to the audience [using mediums such as the internet] than to shoot images using film and converting it into digital and transmitting it to the world
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

John Benedick    says:

I see every ones point. My friend is a High end Fashion Photographer. His photo's go right to a Pc on the set. As he takes the photos other ppl look at them and make changes like they don't like the color dress they change it or the hair color and so on. Is this photography or graphic art?
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

rushfan2112 (Late Developer)    says:

@ Andrew at SDC

I swapped 35mm film from Nikon to Canon because I had always wanted a Canon F1-N when it came out in the early 80's but could never afford one. It's a beautiful, heavy lump.

A local independent camera retailer and professional (who is a friend of mine) decided to off-load a really nice example and a load of excellent FD glass - including a 20-35mm f3.5 L - which is a great combo for a walker / landscaper / travel shooter.

I will get an F5 or F100 again when I can afford a few hundred quid.

However, I couldn't possibly have afforded to do this with my digital gear (not that I would want to) because to buy a D700 or 5D Mk2 body alone would cost more than the three film SLRs and dozen or so FD lenses I have.

That said, film cameras are now holding their own price-wise in the UK and classics / better examples are increasing. Film seems to be finding a niche and I believe it would be a tragedy if it were ever lost.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

RuanNiemann    says:

No more than wordprocessors and pc's devalued great literature.

owning a pc with Word does not make you a Hemmingway any more than owning a dslr makes you a Leibowitz.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

But modern publishing has had an impact on literature. The greats works are still unwaivering, but it's opened the floodgates to everyone and their dog.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

RuanNiemann    says:

i agree. just like the printing press made books accessible so many years ago. the printed the bible and today they print playboy. its all relative.

the way i see the flood of digital, is most people are just documenting their surroundings as a memory aid.

not many take the time to learn the technical aspects of the game, or in fact feel a creative urge, they just want to have pictures to remind them of certain times, like holidays and birthdays.

thus those who do learn the technicalities, and have that creative urge and edge will still find value in what they do.

there are millions of cars around, but people still pay millions for Ferrari's and Bugatti's. cream will rise.

i suppose it also depends on what you are trying to achieve with your photography.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

I guess asking for greater understanding and appreciation of photography from society is asking a little too much.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

mrbwa1    says:

Interesting thread we have going here. I see a few valid points here that a representative of a few different view points I have seen and several groups.

I think my view is slightly different on the subject at hand here. Fist though, I need to clear up my view of some terminology.

The Professional photographer has always had several connotations, but I find 2 to be the most prevalent:

1. Photojournalist (everything from The Flag at Iwo Jima to the now endless barrage of celebrity shots)

2. Artistic photos (Annie Leibovitz, Ansel Adams, etc)

Unfortunately, these are 2 very distinct types of pro photographers.

It is the first group of photographers that has accounted for most technological progress in the 35mm/DSLR formats at least. Auto Exposure was developed for sports photographers to have one less thing to worry about when trying to get the shot. Then Auto Focus came along so the "pro" could focus on getting the shot even more. Better AE & AF ensued and eventually digital cameras allowed for faster times to press, eventually leading to infestation of pro now referred to as the paparazzi.

The improvements trickled into the consumer market and were pushed as a way to essentially help defray the R&D costs of new improvements. this is the basic reason behind seeming endless micro-improvements like a better AF system or slightly higher Megapixel count in seemingly similar bodies.

The 2nd group of pros generally is not in needs of most of the innovations, and in fact many flickr member reject/dismiss many things like AE and AF. A pro like Ansel Adams probably wouldn't dump a large format view camera for a DSLR if her were alive today. That said, he'd probably tote a digicam along as he was none for he endless notes on exposure that helped develop the zone system. A digicam would help record those exposure notes I would imagine. Beyond the camera, I do think Ansel would have loved Photoshop, as he was a master in teh darkroom and it seems to be a logical extension.

Back to the original question: Does digital devalue photography?

Yes and No

For the professional photojournalist, it allows for a quicker path to publishing and lowers costs. Celeb photos can often fetch thousands of dollars, so if anything digital has helped maintain status quo for a PJ.

That said, anyone can take photos of a local even and get it onto the local news. Yet, once a story makes big headlines, you generally see photos from a pro, or at least licensed by a group like Getty images.

For the artistic photographer, I do think the digital has made life a bit harder. Wedding photographers especially have a hard time as everyone seems to have a camera at weddings, yet the knowledge and polish of a true pro are often devalued in the name of saving a back. Then again, some wedding photographers just aren't that good and provide fodder for Judge Judy shows that also devalue the work of other good photogs.

I also think that there are some people with the means to buy some exotic lenses and travel to exotic locals, once the domain of the National Geographic type photographer, diluting the market for art prints.

The fact remains that no matter how good a camera can be, the most perfect photo of a boring subject is still boring, yet the crudest, blurry, grainy, etc photo of in interesting subject captivates millions (Lock Ness monster).
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Rafterman2009    says:

The answer is that it's too soon to tell. The art of photography is in upheaval for a variety of factors. First the camera and film industry was in upheaval because of digital, then the practice of photography and the profession of photography was in upheaval. Now that high-quality-ish digital photography is available to the masses (many people who have never heard of Cartier-Bresson or who don't know what an f-stop is have DSLRs), you have a lot more people than ever before playing around with photography.

It's easy to say that digital has degraded photography because there is more bad photography than ever before. I thought there were a lot of closeup shots of flowers *before*, now they're even more abundant. Every artist goes through a stage where they experiment and imitate things they've seen before, and do a lot of work they think of as interesting but which has been done a jillion times in the past (weird perspective shots of fences, DoF novelties, that type of thing). Right now, we have A LOT of people going through that adolescent artist phase, and we see their work on flickr, county fair contests, framed in their offices, etc.

I expect this to settle down--somewhat. Which is why I say it's too early to tell. One thing about digital is that different people react to it in different ways. Some people see it as a way to cheaply explore every possible take on a subject, and some people simply don't take the time with their photos. They just snap away without thinking, even subconsciously, about composition, and maybe alter the heck out of their pictures on Photoshop or leave them as is. One thing about film was that it forced you to take your time and make each shot count. Good habits learned on film transfer over to digital, but if you never learned those good habits, then....

In the final reckoning, I think everybody will say that digital made photography easier and cheaper for those who will take the time to nurture their talent, which is a good thing.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Brad Chiplin    says:

Digital hasn't devalued anything. It HAS made things much more accesible though.

I heard the exact same premise when I worked in recording studios and digital took the reigns from analogue. Protools was referred to in exactly the same light as photoshop by the analogue purists.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

Oliviaske says:

I don't think it's devalued photography... but I sure do wish that film was more popular again! I'm really into old cameras, and it costs so much money to get film developed these days let alone FIND anything but 35mm fujifilm color... most places don't even do B&W anymore...

sometimes I feel like a lot of digital stuff all looks the same too.
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

starg82343    says:

If we didn't adapt with our upgrading technology, we'd still be using box cameras and phosphor flash.

Who's to say that the darkroom is to be held in more regard than one that has mastered Photoshop.

The digital age has ushered in a new uprising in photography and imediate access to resourses never before possible. All this without having to turn off the lights! : )
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

Who is to say modern cameras are to be held in higher regard than box cameras?
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

I made this post earlier today on the LPMG forum:

Perhaps one needs to look deeper, there is a two or three prong attack on photography.

1) The majority of the target market are phillistines. They have no deeper understanding to a photograph, to them it's just a picture, and at most a memory, they recognise little difference between a snapshot and a fine photograph.

2) Point one has be aided by the increased accessibility of photography to the general public. Due to their lack of understanding to the true purpose of photography they find no need for anything more than ordinary pictures from ordinary cameras. As a result anything up to a cheap entry level DSLR is fine for them. Likewise this has also lead to a larger number of people who have taken up photography seriously.

3) The media is part of the modern capitalist machine. Their existance is maximise profit, and as a result photographers are often the ones to feel the squeeze. This is further compounded by the large number of photographers have little understanding of Finance/Economics/Politics, this is naturally expected thanks to the increased accessibility to equipment, leading a larger population of less well trained photographers. This is why I often advise young photographers not to study degrees in photography but instead a subject such as PPE, Law or Accounting.

Yellow Bog Designs says:

When I read this thread this morning I didn't bother replying to it. Nor the several other times that I looked at how the discussion was getting along. Frankly, I don't even know why I'm bothering now, since the film buffs will stay film buffs, and digi heads will stay digi heads, no matter what is said. Your opinions are irrelevant to me, just as mine are to you.
There have been many great points raised here, and well, honestly, I'm not going to get into the whole replying to a persons point thing because that often gets us away from the main question asked:- Has digital devalued photography?

For digital to devalue photography is to look at photography from a commercial and artistic standpoint. People going out and buying digital cameras for the sole purpose of taking family and holiday pictures are irrelevant to this discussion then. If they wish to try their hands at something else, fair play to them! Most will not succeed, a few will, and these few are the ones that would have succeeded anyway.
I spent a few years working as a picture framer and in a gallery. Art is, by it's very nature, entirely personal to two people, A. the person who created it, and B. the person viewing it at any one time. I cannot tell you how many times a person came into the gallery and spent quite a lot of money on a piece I wouldn't even think to be fit for the fire. Likewise, I framed a lot of pictures, both paintings and photographs, that were created by hobbyists that blew my mind.
Saying that digital has devalued photography makes no sense to me. It's like saying that a box of expensive oil paints makes one on a par with DaVinci, or an expensive guitar makes one Jimi Hendrix! It's a ridiculous statement, and is akin to blaming Faber Castel for all bad paintings in the world.
Photoshop is another artistic medium, and whilst a photograph that has been heavily manipulated might be somewhat removed from it's photographic roots, it is still art. I'm sure that there is a howl of disapproval going up in many places right about now, but what I'm saying is true. I may not like it, it may not be to my tastes, but who am I, who are any of us, to decide what is and is not art?

Commercially, there are many who will say that digital photography has allowed for a generation of 'cowboy' photographers to develop. People who bought a new shiny, shiny and run around doing weddings, and portraits half-cocked, and getting paid (the horror!!). Good for them. If a consumer is stupid, brave ahem, comfortable with parting with their hard earned cash on photographs that will almost certainly be below par then leave them off. A fool and his money are soon parted. True professionals will always shine through, will always be in demand, and will always be appreciated. I for one know that I would be having a good, long, hard look at the portfolio of any photographer (un)lucky enough to shoot my wedding!

Perhaps the question should not be has digital devalued phtography as much as it should be "Why have we as a society devalued art so much? Being described as "artistic" these days is quite often a subtle insult, and that's a major problem.

Also, someone made a point about the sort of standard, going through the motions, already done to death photos, flowers etc earlier, and I for one, welcome this. Every photographer, every artist, has to start somewhere. Even DaVinci would have drawn stick figures at some point in his life. So must every photographer start out with these more "pedestrian" images, how else would one hone one's skills? Learn about lighting, exposure, focus, composition? In this way, digital will always, always exceed film, for it allows the learning process for the photographer to be that much more immediate, and allows them to remedy their mistakes.

Where do I stand in all this? Well, I used a little film point and shoot when I was much younger, it was all I could afford. I took some 'nice' pictures, some goddamn terrible ones, and some that I will always remain proud of.
I now use a dslr, not because of any conscious choice against film, but because that's what I have available to me (on permanent loan from the Mr). Using the dslr has taught me a hell of a lot more than the little p&s, obviously. I still know nothing. I learn every time I press the shutter button, and I hope it stays that way, for the day I know everything the world will be a much sadder and less colourful place.
I don't use PhotoShop, have no idea how to. I recently came to possess a very old slr, which I hope to use in the future, though I worry about developing my own pictures solely because of the chemicals, so who knows?
I don't care if you use film, digital, or two sticks to scratch in the ground, if you enjoy what you're doing, then keep doing it!
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

I may have been guilty of a little misrepresentations, but nothing worse than the news media.

Yellow Bog's rephrased question is what I aimed to put a across. I worry for our current get it now, digitalised society. We've gone so far to say that "impatience is a virture" as the Samsung Jet adverts proclaimed.
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

Mr Nessy    says:

Coming to this discussion a bit late I suppose, but...

"Devalued" is an interesting word.

I can see it in a sense, average joe wedding photographer is going to have a hard time competing with amateurs or Uncle Bill who just got a new Canon for Christmas and hasn't really had a chance to use it yet. In that sense, the cash return value for photographers has diminished a bit, although I suspect that's going to be a short-term trend once people realise how bad the pictures can look.

But on the other hand, digital culture, beyond what we use to take and develop our pictures, has really transformed photography as a whole. The way people interact with and through photos in this century is completely different to anything that's gone before. Your friend goes on holiday, next thing you know there are pictures of the trip on Facebook. Your brother who lives miles away can post up pictures of the new baby you haven't got to see yet. A group of friends go on a night out, somewhere you'd never have taken a film camera, and the next day the incriminating evidence is up for all to see.

Some of these are good things, some can be bad, and none of what I'm talking about has any bearing on the *quality* of the pictures taken, but in terms of cultural value, photography has a new and profound importance to our entire social structure that NEVER EXISTED pre-digital.

Digital has democratised and evolved photography a great deal. Think how many photos you now see in a day, where previously you wouldn't have seen any.

Good photographers can take pictures with greater ease and a wider range of options. There are more bad photographers, true, but that's what happens when things migrate from an elite to the mainstream.

To pick up on an example from earlier in the thread - a UFO lands, there are a few dozen people around with camera phones and one wins the Pulitzer prize. Are you seriously suggesting it's better if no-one was able to capture that moment AT ALL? I really don't see who that would help. (Except possibly the FBI...)
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

Adler Chalk [deleted] says:

No.

I spoke to a Fine Art dealer with 30 years in the business about this.

Film is also dying out in his area. Digital is just the future that is all.
Originally posted 21 months ago. (permalink)
Adler Chalk edited this topic 21 months ago.

Zen Procrastination says:

All I know is that I am a beginner who tries to compose each shot.

I see a lot of people winning competitions with blatantly photoshopped images (especially on Worth1000). Adding in blue skies, rubbing out lampposts.

It's photo fiction. I am sure the pro's used to say "F8 and be there". That is why I am slowly beginning to prefer photo-journalism. There is an element of truth, of hasty skill to the shot.

Most people just snap away, fix the image in cropping and then click 'auto-level'. Viola - a reasonable photograph. But is that 'photography'? I don't know.

I would love to have been a photographer back in Steve Curry's day...using film.
Originally posted 21 months ago. (permalink)
Zen Procrastination edited this topic 21 months ago.

Loops666    says:

It's easier to do great things with photography now, but that doesn't make it easy in an absolute sense.
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

oldglass    says:

Nothing preventing you from doing film-photography now, quite a few people got quite literally bored with digital and start adding film to their photo-arsenal.

I am one of those people.
Posted 21 months ago. (permalink)

d90owner says:

Maybe off the topic a little, but...

A friend of mine who has his own graphic design company told me he has recently aquired an iPhone 4, and downloaded an app that turns the iPhone into a Kodak Instamatic camera. Despite his years of experience with digital, photoshop, film, filters etc etc he reckons he is having more fun with this "Instamatic" than with his collection of digital cameras.

And on a similar vein, I saw a book on making various types of pin-hole cameras. I'm seriously thinking of purchasing it. Cheap disposable cameras, can do things you wouldn't do with an expensive digital.
Originally posted 20 months ago. (permalink)
d90owner edited this topic 20 months ago.

cmartin_ok (Chris Martin)    says:

Depends on what you mean by "devaluing". Digital has opened photography up to so many more people because of convenience and cost. Don't just think of it in terms of how much the top pro's get paid, or how long they may need to set up a particular shot. There are now many more people enjoying themselves and taking photographs, recording memories, than in the days of film. Surely in the overall scheme of things, this has to be a god thing. For keen amateurs, digital has made our lives easier and we can try out new things, as for one, it is so easy to change ISO "mid-roll", or to mix colour (color for those in North America) and black&white "mid-roll". For those of us who liked to do our own D&P, we no longer have to commandeer the bathroom and endure the smell of chemicals; it' so easy (convenience factor again) to process and post-process to our heart's content.
Posted 20 months ago. (permalink)

livininfrostytown    says:

A Pro-photographer does it out of love of photography and getting that perfect shot. They strive to learn more and master their skills for amazing photos no matter what type of camera they use, i.e. film or digital.

Having a DSLR camera does not make you a pro and these cameras can take a snapshot just like any other camera if you don't learn your camera, framing, lighting and an eye to make the image a piece of art. Living aboard with the military, it is worse and a mom or dad taking snapshots is now calling themselves a professional and charging others of a service that anyone can do. They are not willing to take classes or to even strive for a better image but disappoint client after client with blurry, washed out images that even a semi-pro could take with a simple point and shoot. those native to this country are not much better so taking a chance it what families are willing to do to get images of their families. It is sad.

I once heard this "Anyone can post a picture but a true pro only chooses his very best to display," and I totally agree.
Posted 20 months ago. (permalink)

4String    says:

Has nobody else noticed the irony in the question?

This group is for Self Taught Photographers! lmao.

This question was asked when the first camera was used and will continue to be asked. Should the question be "Does Digital Photography Render The Profession Photographer Redundant?" ;)

Digital camera equipment makes it easier for anyone (that is interested in doing so) to take nice photo's. My wife would still rather pic up a compact and take a pic than use my dSLR. "That's too complicated for me!" is the response I usually get when I suggest she uses it.

Can an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters write a novel? ;)
Posted 20 months ago. (permalink)

Scott's Snap-Shots    says:

This is too good not to post - I just found this on a buddy's FB page...

www.27bslash6.com/photography.html
Posted 20 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

Unfortunately it too often makes it easier for people who think they can produce good photographs to produce junk. Sometimes there needs to be some elitism to sort the wheat from the chaff.
-------------------------------------------------------
I keep on repeating this, that the highest standards in photography hasn't dropped , and I fully accept that, and have never doubted it for a minute. I want to you to ask yourself has the average standard dropped?
Posted 20 months ago. (permalink)

PMac Imagery    says:

Coming to this topic really late but enjoyed reading the thread.

However, my take is slightly different to most here. I think too many people confuse, are at least arent careful enough to distinguish between "craft" and "art".

Craft, the ability to master all elements of the process of photography to produce an image is definitely degraded and even devalued by digital. While it is true that digital hasnt completely destroyed the craft of photography (meters arent perfect and photoshopping itself requires a degree of perseverance and experimentation) I doubt many would argue that today the level of dedication to master the operation of a modern camera or editing software matched that required by manual film cameras and wet darkrooms.

Art, the ability to know what image is worth making, is however largely unaffected by the appearance of digital. Digital technology has made it easier to make a great image, but it has done little (if anything) to help the person putting it together to know what a great image is.

Personally I dont regret that situation. Personally, the craft of photography has always left me cold. I hated film and still resent having to stop and use a tripod. The mucky muck of getting the image in my head into the camera and onto the computer is something I just want to get over. So I love digital with a passion and revel in how it lets me get to the art quickly.

However, just as there are people that value the hand crafted boat, vase, chair or tapestry and I understand that for others, the loss (at least partially) of the craft of photography is a painful thing.
Originally posted 20 months ago. (permalink)
PMac Imagery edited this topic 20 months ago.

ninja 4 life says:

When I stared photography 7 years ago as a novice I didn't realize how involved the photography process can be. Today I shoot with a canon 5D mark II, and I hardly ever use the program modes. I spent 7 years studying exposure aperture f-stops shutter speeds iso flash sync ect. I even went back to old film cameras like the Minolta x-700 and the canon AE I actually learned so much more about modern digital photography by going back to the old school way of thought. I think the only time I use AV or TV modes is when I'm using canon's speedlite systems.
Posted 19 months ago. (permalink)

Ramesh Garden says:

Technology and innovation is a continuous process and the field of photography is no exception. Digital invention no doubt brought millions to try photography as hobby.
'skills' are required and relevant for any field of study, but cannot be quantified of qualified as 'standard' because its also evolves with the time and technology.
Thanks to the technology the photography no longer remains the exclusive domain of select photographers.
What really matters is the final product as the Image and all the intermittent process only help but help it.
Is it not the Joy of clicking which made us all the Shutter Bugs !!
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

Thanks to the technology the photography no longer remains the exclusive domain of select photographers.

Do people honestly believe that 35mm cameras were prohibitively expensive?
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Silent's Witness [deleted] says:

@Michael Costolo: Good point.
With digital most of the costs are upfront.
Film cameras had the repeated cost of film & development.

I wonder if you would compare costs in a 5 year period what the cost difference would be. But that is a trick question as you might upgrade your digital camera after maybe 2 or 3 years.

But it does seem as though digital has made photography more accessible -- but that may rather be of the digital publishing available now which is associated with digital cameras. THAT or humankind love the "instant" & "on mass" effect that digital provide so more try it out.

Thinking out loud..
-- Will Silent
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

Try perhaps to look at it from another point of view. I feel that digital makes photography more simple, easier to comprehend, and I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing.

For example you could never see an image when you clicked the shutter. You had to wait for the images to be developed, and even then rarely could you see the image so easily on a big screen. It wouldn't be often that people print larger than 8x10, today most will be able to see all their images on at least something the same size as 8x10 on a screen.

So when it comes to accessibility, it's not the financial freedom that digital grants, but it lets more people open their minds. Effectively it's easier to get a photographers eye.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

I would argue that the marketing of digital has been far superior to that of photography in the 35mm days. It has been very successful for whatever reason(s).

I would strongly disagree about any cost savings with digital SLRs. Consider the software that people now feel obligated to buy, and the 18 month upgrade cycle. Contrast that with the caution that people have with film shots and I'll bet it is a push.

@ciao: Comprehension? Is that really an argument you can support? Poll the group and find out what fraction leave their advanced digital SLR cameras on the green box setting. What is it that they comprehend?

And I think your 8x10 example has more to do with time than with technology. All of the film people I know scan their work or get scans from the lab and can certainly see images on large computer screens. No this wasn't happening before, but it can certainly be said of "analog" today.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Silent's Witness [deleted] says:

-- my thoughts now has nothing to do with the argument --
"Consider the software that people now feel obligated to buy, and the 18 month upgrade cycle."
How I love GIMP!
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Silent's Witness [deleted] says:

Do you think there is a valid point..
There are more people that can afford gear that *looks* like if it is "pro" gear. Then the assumption is made -- buy something that looks "pro" then your efforts become **brilliant** -- it does not matter what you aim at...!?
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

You're right, it's a shocking proportion of people that do leave it in green box, but that's not the point. What digital does link cause and effect more directly.

As to scanning films, and stuff, I see that all as part of the digital revolution too, and it does make film more accessible, but it's not instant like digital.

Digital makes photography more accessible because of techncal reasons rather than the financial. Obviously this is a double edged sword, which is the reason why the accessibility also decreases the overall standard.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

If you are shooting green box, what connections are you making? Not having control of "cause" makes it hard to link it with "effect." Perhaps I'm missing something.

We have has scanners for quite some time. They aren't new by any means. Personally I've had more scanners than digital cameras in my life.

Accessibility is nice and all, but we sure have a lot more crap to show for it.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

DLMorris    says:

A tool doesn't make art
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

The number of people who shoot green box is irrelevant. They can continue to enjoy their blissful ignorance.

There has always been affordable 35mm SLRs, just like the entry level DSLRs these days. So I don't see how cost is an issue to accessibility.

For those who learn today, the experience is a lot more direct. This is what digital has brought us.

Perhaps digital loses a few important skills, which is why film is still important, but for learning the foundations digital makes it easier to understand.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

Let me rephrase that.

Digital means the photographer can learn without thinking as much.

That is accessibility defined.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

To add to that. That is actually a bad thing, but its nothing to do with cost.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Silent's Witness [deleted] says:

The original question was:
"Has digital devaluated photography?"

So in my 2nd language English understanding --
Has the influence of digital technologies
decreased the value and appreciation of the
techniques and skills required to
record and generate (photo) images?

==photographer==
When analog ruled the world there was much more caution in how an image was composed and how the exposure was mastered. It was but a handful of people that possessed the insight in how to control the way the photo was taken. The learning process was hard and long. Dedication and skill was needed.

Nowadays everyone who is anyone, can pick up a camera -- point and shoot. The learning curve is much quicker -- for those who wish to dig deeper. Most are however content with whatever is produced from their camera or processed by their software.

The value of the skills required of a photographer is de-valued as it is seen as trivial and simple. (which we know it is not)

==photo appreciation==
In the analog days, only a few had access to photo art. This art works have been equalled with fine art. Ownership of these works were not overly common.

The internet and other media (includes newspapers) have made (non-snap-shot) photo imagery more available to a broader spectrum of people. There are more appreciation for a well taken photo and more focus is put on the artists that produce good works (marketing / promotion).

There are more appreciation for the art itself (higher value) but this is kept in balance with the mass amount of photos that comes to the surface. A good photo is more sought after, but too many photos make the search difficult. In this aspect there is a tie.

--

So yes -- digital technologies do have a negative effect on the value placed on photography. That is especially true if your definition of "photo" is a glossy printed version.

There is however a very good chance that the tide will turn, with more and more people becoming aware what skill is required to produce a photographic artwork. But it may become worse first before becoming better.

That is my first thought through thoughts..
hopefully it may cause some more debate.

Until then.. this amateur will enjoy the thrill of being able to share life's journeys with the people around him.

--Will Silent
Originally posted 18 months ago. (permalink)
Silent's Witness edited this topic 18 months ago.

Silent's Witness [deleted] says:

O boy! that is a long piece of writing -- sorry chaps!
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

Michael Costolo    says:

Not sure I agree with your definition of accessibility. The ready availability of imaging chips means a lot more gadgets have cameras though. I don't think that Photography is necessarily better for it.

I've never really had a cost incentive. Had I, I wouldn't shoot 8x10.
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)

ciao_chao    says:

But when have you seen a working photographer wielding a cameraphone?
Posted 18 months ago. (permalink)