Is digital diluting pro revenues?

First off, apologies for the cross-post, but I think this is relevant in
both groups.

With the mass infusion of digital cameras into the marketplace, most of
which are capable of taking photos a lot better than the average 35mm P&S
cameras they replaced, do you think that there will be less need for
professional photographers as the technology advances?

I'm thinking specifically in terms of things like photographing functions
and certain types of low-end product protography. In days gone bye no one
(except the truly brave) would have attempted to take photographs of their
products for reproduction on litho using a 35mm P&S. Yet today we have
some digital cameras that are highly adaptable and capable of producing
images that can be immediately used in print. Also, the element of cost
(in terms of film) is removed, thus resulting in a far shorter learning
curve for new photographers than was the case for those making a living
out of film photography only a few years ago.

Digital has brought more and more photograhers into the realm and I
strongly believe that as these cameras evolve and become cheaper, the
already crowded professional market might just not be able to cope with
it as more and more people begin using digital to produce imagery that can
pass for professional work.

I'm seeing this now in one area that I used to make a bit of spare cash
in, namely pre-school informal portrait photography. Many former clients
are now being approached by kids weilding top end 8MP digital P&S cameras,
doing the same job I used to do for them using my DSLR. Some school owners
are even doing it themselves and making a killing in the process.

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

Rox-off wrote:
snip
With the mass infusion of digital cameras into the marketplace, most of
which are capable of taking photos a lot better than the average 35mm P&S
cameras they replaced, do you think that there will be less need for
professional photographers as the technology advances?

I'm thinking specifically in terms of things like photographing functions
and certain types of low-end product protography. In days gone bye no one
(except the truly brave) would have attempted to take photographs of their
products for reproduction on litho using a 35mm P&S. Yet today we have
some digital cameras that are highly adaptable and capable of producing
images that can be immediately used in print. Also, the element of cost
(in terms of film) is removed, thus resulting in a far shorter learning
curve for new photographers than was the case for those making a living
out of film photography only a few years ago.

Digital has brought more and more photograhers into the realm and I
strongly believe that as these cameras evolve and become cheaper, the
already crowded professional market might just not be able to cope with
it as more and more people begin using digital to produce imagery that can
pass for professional work.

I'm seeing this now in one area that I used to make a bit of spare cash
in, namely pre-school informal portrait photography. Many former clients
are now being approached by kids weilding top end 8MP digital P&S cameras,
doing the same job I used to do for them using my DSLR. Some school owners
are even doing it themselves and making a killing in the process.

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?

No, and I don't think it will, to any great extent. Most of my work
involves a combination of writing and photography, even in auto
features. This requires reasonably extensive knowledge of the subject
being photographed, whether a classic car or a woodworking technique or
tool or a house, or...you name it.

The car features might be affected, but...there is more to it than just
point and click away with a shiny object in front of you. Composition
and pinpoint sharpness in the correct areas start the list. Reflections
add to it: I just sent an editor a semi-joke photo called "Find the
photographer" of the gleaming trunk lid of a classic car. Though I had
danced over half of creation trying to hide, I was still visible if you
knew where and how to look.

Angles, lighting, focus, general composition all make it more difficult
to do well than just pointing a good camera and clicking the shutter.
That will probably always be the case.

Some portrait photographers are going to be in trouble, I'm sure. I
know companies often pay to have head shots taken for use with press
releases. I have no idea what is charged, but that's one point where a
background and a couple cheap lights, along with a decent low end
digital camera, can kill photography markets. I noticed, too, that even
church photographers have gone digital. That's a market that may be due
for some major shifts, but I think it's largely because people are
becoming less satisfied with the results they see, the production line
quality of the sittings.

Wedding photography? I doubt it, really, in the long run. I've shot a
few weddings, none recently and I won't do a full wedding ever again.
Too much work. If the person buying the package compares what the pro
does with what his amateur buddies do, then the checkbook will hit the
pro's desk first. It's not just a matter of talent and camera. It is a
matter of a developed "eye" for what is likely to strike each client as
the best at bringing back memories (of course, if the divorce rate
keeps rising, it may be that no one will WANT those memories, but
that's an entirely different subject).

Basically, I see the production line photographers, school and church
particularly, as running into some problems, possibly minor. Many may
be forced to rethink their approach to photography, to get away from
the cliched poses and exposures that have been in use since before I
was in high school. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Even
amateur competition can be good if it improves what the client receives.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off
wrote:

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
must have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

Rox-off wrote:
What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


I can speak to this. I bought a basic dSLR and a telephoto zoom lens
this spring (a 300d and a gasp Tamron 75-300), and my girlfriend has
used it on a weekly basis to attend low-end horse shows to take
pictures. She works on a P&S level, and wouldn't know an L-series 300mm
if it fell on her foot. There is a local riding organization where she
is one of the 'staff' photographers who are similarly equipped and
experienced. Then the pics are made available for the org. members to
browse thru and purchase for a very reasonable price. (pricing of
course is commensurate with the experience/investment of the
photographers, but for the pics that come out well presents quite a nice
value to the customer).
I have to say, we/she can get some stunning images, and the customers
are very happy. There was one show where a true professional
photographer attended (by mistake of the organizers, who also invited
her club's photographers), complete with a powered trailer loaded with
post-processing and printing gear to make instant prints. It didn't
take long to realize that because he had little experience riding and
shooting horses, that his technical skills were offset by the eye of the
amateur staff photographers. Once that pro figured out the situation,
he was pretty ****ed (usually it's an exclusive agreement to be the
photographer), he gave them dirty looks all day long, but it wasn't
their fault. It takes an eye for the breed and showing type to capture
images the way the riders want to see themselves - and that IMO seems to
make the big difference. And these shows aren't big enough to warrant a
professional equestrian photographer.
So, I guess my conclusion is that since in good lighting conditions,
affordable digital products make for a legitimately sellable product in
some cases (outdoor shows with good lighting, low-level riders). Is she
making real money doing this? No, certainly not enough to pay for the
gear investment, and if we would invest in more appropriate equipment (a
20d, f/2.8L 70-200, etc) she would never catch up. At the cost point
she's offering at it's mostly a service and the print sales almost pay
for her time. I think that this organization's staff photography has
definitely cut into the realm of a few pros, but that it's at a low
level (in $$) and the staff crew won't be cutting in much further.

Dave

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off
wrote:

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
must have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

here here. I found that more people want video than stills. I think my
editing skills make the difference. A background track, a few titles, fades
and wipes, not using the zoom and not panning too fast is enough. Just
spent the weekend whittling down 60 mins of footage to 40 mins. Then
putting on the fancy stuff. Went down very well.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:04:39 -0400, McLeod wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off wrote:

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera must
have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is created
by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your business, then
your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

No, you're not reading the point correctly. What I am saying is that
because of the fact that photography is now open to a lot more people, the
market for professionals has become a little tougher because a lot of
people are now able to do better with their digitals than they were able
to in the past. Whether or not they actually achieve something better than
if they did it themselves is not relevant.

I used my situation as an example. I am sure there are others.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

"Rox-off" wrote in message
news

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?
What I've seen happening, is that it seems every rich kid with a DSLR
suddenly thinks they are a Pro photographer. I occasionally do work in a
printing lab that caters for a lot of the "pro's" who do weddings etc, and
frankly most of this work is pure rubbish. We have a regular clientel of
about 10 wedding photographers, who all do a wedding pretty much every week.
Of those, there is only 1 that I would even consider getting to do work. The
rest seem to not have a basic grasp of exposure, focus, depth of field and
framing. A photographer who can't get exposure and focus reasonably right
with a 20D or D70 is pretty hopeless IMO.
I don't actively pursue professional photographic work (although I will take
it when asked), and I certainly don't consider myself a pro, but I can tell
the difference between someone taking snapshots and someone who is a
professional photographer in the real sense of the word. (I think I fit
somewhere in the middle).
Considering "professional" simply means those who are paid to take photos, I
think there are a couple of categories within the term professional.
1. There are the true professionals, who are excellent at their craft. These
people could take sellable photos with a camera-phone or a disposable,
because their skill lies not only in mastering the technical side of
photography (exposure, focus etc), but also in the artistic side of
photography (composure etc).
2. There are the snapshooters with an expensive camera. These people take
pretty good photos, but it is only because they have expensive equipment.
They may have mastered the ability to purchase gear, and are probably pretty
good at the technical aspects of taking a photograph, but often are mediocre
or worse when it comes to the artistic side of photography. These are also
the people who seem most likely to enter into "my gear is better than your
gear" matches, or brag about how many Canon L series lenses they own.
It is the photographers who fit into category 2 that I see are becoming more
and more prevalent in professional circles, especially wedding and portrait
photography.
A few months ago I shot a wedding where the client hired 2 photographers -
one did digital colour work and I was there for B&W film work. The #1
photographer was well and truly a category 2 above. The whole time he was
ridiculing me for still shooting film, ridiculing me for using a Pentax
camera, and gloating that pro's only use Canon. He was a total pain in the
arse. Did you know that the trouble with Pentax cameras is that the images
they produce are too sharp to be considered professional? This is because
the camera does more in-camera sharpening than Canons, and this applies to
both film and digital cameras. just one of the little gems of wisdom from
this moron. That from someone who couldn't understand why I would be using
colour filters when shooting B&W film. I know for a fact that I sold more
prints from that day than he did, so there can't be too much wrong with
those over-sharp pentax film cameras.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

In article ,
Rox-off wrote:

First off, apologies for the cross-post, but I think this is relevant in
both groups.

With the mass infusion of digital cameras into the marketplace, most of
which are capable of taking photos a lot better than the average 35mm P&S
cameras they replaced, do you think that there will be less need for
professional photographers as the technology advances?

I'm thinking specifically in terms of things like photographing functions
and certain types of low-end product protography. In days gone bye no one
(except the truly brave) would have attempted to take photographs of their
products for reproduction on litho using a 35mm P&S. Yet today we have
some digital cameras that are highly adaptable and capable of producing
images that can be immediately used in print. Also, the element of cost
(in terms of film) is removed, thus resulting in a far shorter learning
curve for new photographers than was the case for those making a living
out of film photography only a few years ago.

Digital has brought more and more photograhers into the realm and I
strongly believe that as these cameras evolve and become cheaper, the
already crowded professional market might just not be able to cope with
it as more and more people begin using digital to produce imagery that can
pass for professional work.

I'm seeing this now in one area that I used to make a bit of spare cash
in, namely pre-school informal portrait photography. Many former clients
are now being approached by kids weilding top end 8MP digital P&S cameras,
doing the same job I used to do for them using my DSLR. Some school owners
are even doing it themselves and making a killing in the process.

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?

Yes, digital photography has led to a glut of crappy photographs on the
market and at the best everyone's images look the same. No originality,
just people following the leader. I can't tell you how many times I
wanted to slap someone silly because they wanted to shoot like Ansel
Adams. Everyone thinks they are a photographer and they will be famous.

Take that! :^P

In article ,
McLeod wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off
wrote:

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

That's if they see your image in the sea of crap.


If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
must have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

In article ,
"ian lincoln" wrote:

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off
wrote:

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
must have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

here here. I found that more people want video than stills. I think my
editing skills make the difference. A background track, a few titles, fades
and wipes, not using the zoom and not panning too fast is enough. Just
spent the weekend whittling down 60 mins of footage to 40 mins. Then
putting on the fancy stuff. Went down very well.

What are you? A blowfish?