What happened to the photography industry
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:48 pm
NatureScapes.net Nature Photography Resource - Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums, Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles and Tips
https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/
Jeff Colburn wrote:
The bulk of people take photos with their phone, and are fine with that. They don't need a $1,000 to $5,000 camera body. But the camera industry keeps focusing on the $1,000 plus cameras. If they don't find a way to meet the needs of the average amateur photographer, then they will disappear too. They have to offer a product that's inexpensive, easy to use, connects with the internet and is small. When the camera phone users ask, "Why should I use a camera when I have one in my phone?" camera manufacturers need to have an answer that will make them say, "Wow, I have to buy that."
Well said Ed.Ed Cordes wrote:I, for one, understand all of the above. However, the painter still paints and takes days, weeks or even months to produce the image they want. We, as serious photographers, are not just documenting what we see, we are creating art. Yes, we use more sophisticated tools and spend more time on the details. However, we do it for ourselves, our pride, our integrity, and for the love of creating the best image we know how to create. I totally understand that most of the viewers of my images don't know a blown highlight from a branch entering from the side of the frame or closed eyes on a critter. However, I do. I try for excellence because it challenges me and I can achieve it if I work hard enough. If the new generation doesn't care so be it. I care.
Ed Cordes wrote:I, for one, understand all of the above. However, the painter still paints and takes days, weeks or even months to produce the image they want. We, as serious photographers, are not just documenting what we see, we are creating art. Yes, we use more sophisticated tools and spend more time on the details. However, we do it for ourselves, our pride, our integrity, and for the love of creating the best image we know how to create. I totally understand that most of the viewers of my images don't know a blown highlight from a branch entering from the side of the frame or closed eyes on a critter. However, I do. I try for excellence because it challenges me and I can achieve it if I work hard enough. If the new generation doesn't care so be it. I care.
Although you say this tongue in cheek, to a large extent it is actually true. Coming from the film age when what you got in a transparency was what you had as a final product, I see the progression to where equipment plays a greater role in the quality of photography nowadays. When I started shooting for publication, transparencies were the standard, not negative film. There was no latitude in exposure, composition(for the most part), or sharpness. Autofocus was just getting to a reasonably usable point, but super telephoto lenses were manual focus exclusively. Autoexposure was only fair, so most people only shot with manual settings. The wait time to get your images back precluded repeating a shot in the field if it wasn’t quite what you were expecting it to be. Changes to an image in PP was not available yet. Now you have instant feedback, HDR, VR, high ISO(most important change ever, IMO), excellent PP options, noise reduction and sharpening, extreme crops that still are usable, excellent auto exposure and focusing possibilities, live view, nearly unlimited number of shots without changing memory cards, etc. These are glorified P&S cameras, basically. To a casual shooter using a P&S or phone camera, pro cameras do produce incredible images with less effort and skill required. Sure, skill is still required, but even in the hands of a mediocre photographer, PP(by a skilled operator) can turn an image from a pro camera and lens into much more than was ever possible before. This is obvious in the number of fantastic images produced today. If it was still all about skill and not equipment, you would not see the prolific number of great photographers and images you see out there. Changes in equipment have opened many possibilities unavailable before, but that has only made things more worthwhile for a pro who spends so much time and money on travel to get those special images. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for photography.Baywing wrote:
I no longer think it's the photographer but it's the camera that is responsible. I can't count how many times people have told me my camera takes beautiful pictures. If so many people say it, it must be true.......
I agree completely. I have noted an improvement in my own image making as the tools have become more advanced and I never had a 'good eye'. Hearing other people say the same thing is also gratifying to some extent although I also often get comments like 'Oh, that's a great picture, you must have a very expensive camera'.SantaFeJoe wrote:Although you say this tongue in cheek, to a large extent it is actually true. ......................Baywing wrote:
I no longer think it's the photographer but it's the camera that is responsible. I can't count how many times people have told me my camera takes beautiful pictures. If so many people say it, it must be true.......
If it was still all about skill and not equipment, you would not see the prolific number of great photographers and images you see out there. Changes in equipment have opened many possibilities unavailable before, but that has only made things more worthwhile for a pro who spends so much time and money on travel to get those special images. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for photography.
Joe
Honest (i.e. unloaded) question: are you saying that you feel that your images have become technically more advanced as the result of equipment improvement or aesthetically more advanced? Or both?Primus wrote:I have noted an improvement in my own image making as the tools have become more advanced and I never had a 'good eye'.
Honest and short answer: Both.Kerry wrote:Honest (i.e. unloaded) question: are you saying that you feel that your images have become technically more advanced as the result of equipment improvement or aesthetically more advanced? Or both?Primus wrote:I have noted an improvement in my own image making as the tools have become more advanced and I never had a 'good eye'.
Thanks.