Is Professional photography Dead?

[cdifoto]

Seems to be that the only people claiming it's dead are the ones who can't make a go of it. Photographers are prospering more now than they ever have before...if they know what they're doing.

[RDKirk]

There are a couple of things that concern me, but I'm not sure I can articulate them effectively.

One thing that concerns me is the success at marketing schlock--by professionals--which is a short-term gain that leads to long-term losses for photography both as an industry and a craft.

To look at a music analogy, we're getting to a point that low-craft is being heavily marketed in all areas. I'm not talking about a difference in genres because it affects all genres. It's even in the technology--designing music that sounds no better from an MP-3 than from a CD or vinyl because there is just nothing more in the music to be heard.

I didn't discover that Lady Gaga truly can sing until I heard her duet with Tony Bennett--the "popular" over-produced stuff that fits an MP3 doesn't display her true talent. That's not fair to "music" nor is is ultimately fair to Lady Gaga or to the audience in the long term. What will happen is that because Lady Gaga's popularity is based on production rather than talent, she's easily expendable and replaceable by someone with less talent.

I think the same thing is happening in photography. It's not just that photography has become easier, but that a lower level of photography is being marketed and accepted as "good," and even those with talent have to hide the talent to become popular.

I said, "to become popular." I think I have to do the same thing that a classical musician has to do--accept the fact that my work will have niche appreciation and make myself well known within that niche. Fortunately, that's something that is much more possible with the Internet.

[es1]

No. What is happening is that bad photographers are being exposed. I've see a lot of photographers that have been shooting for decades that simply suck. A lot of people made living as a photographer just because they had expensiv camera and called themselfs a professional photographer. Now many of them are out of business because everyone can have good enough camera for very little money these days and take as good or better pictures. Skill is way more important today than it was before the digital era. Bad/ok photographers will loose their jobs sooner or later. Great photograpehrs will always have a job.

[bigjon0107]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

Seems to be that the only people claiming it's dead are the ones who can't make a go of it. Photographers are prospering more now than they ever have before...if they know what they're doing.

Probably the best answer here. I have had countless conversations with other pro shooters and many of them talk about how the industry is declining, yada yada, while personally my company has had an increase of 500% over the past 12 months. If you are not changing and adapting to your market (constantly), and still shooting like you did in the 80's, you won't ever be able to make it.

[Joe Ravenstein]

NO but there are plenty who are a legend in their own mind. Adapt and overcome is still the key. if you were a professional shooter with film the media didn't change a thing, just reduced the amount of chemical holes in your clothes.

[Todd Lambert]

Am I the only one that didn't understand one thing in the OP? I mean seriously, each sentence made absolutely no sense to me at all.

[Joe Ravenstein]

I look to see where the OPs location is and accept most grammatical dust ups and reply in a manner they will understand. I'm not here to brief them on the"proper english" unless they specifically ask for help phrasing their queries. I have enough trouble deciphering those who we broke away from in the 1600 and 1700s for so called religious freedom and freedom to speak our minds LOL I speak west Texan dang near as good as east Texan. Thanks to the USAFs penchant for plopping down air fields all over this fine lone star state

[sambarino]

Digital cameras will kill professional photography when they can adjust lighting, angles, composition, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, lens and ISO all by themselves. As long a human is required to operate the camera, professionals have nothing to worry about. I, despite spending a small fortune on camera equipment, will never be a professional. Equipment does NOT make the photographer; skills do. Most of my pictures are of my grandson, my cats and my dogs. Unless you want to buy those, I will always be an amateur.

[DC Fan]

The precise date when professional photography died was 112 years ago. That was when Eastman Kodak began selling the Brownie. It was a box camera that was the first to be marketed to the non-professional user. Until 1900, people needed to go to professional photographers to get pictures. After Kodak started selling the Brownie, there was no need for professional photographers, because anyone could buy a Brownie for US $1. and take their own pictures. Because of the Brownie and George Eastman, there has been no professional photography since February of 1900.

[sambarino]

Originally Posted by DC Fan

The precise date when professional photography died was 112 years ago. That was when Eastman Kodak began selling the Brownie. It was a box camera that was the first to be marketed to the non-professional user. Until 1900, people needed to go to professional photographers to get pictures. After Kodak started selling the Brownie, there was no need for professional photographers, because anyone could buy a Brownie for US $1. and take their own pictures. Because of the Brownie and George Eastman, there has been no professional photography since February of 1900.

You are insinuating that the 'profession' is in the camera. If that were the case, I would be a professional. I most certainly am not. A professional photographer uses the equipment at hand to produce a 'professional photograph'. I am sure I could take a professional's Pentax 645D, or 1DX and produce my same mediocre snapshots of my grandchildren and my cats. No big feat there. A 'professional' could take my T1i, 60D or even my SX260 and make a 'professional photograph'. That is something that will forever elude me. Don't encourage me; I've been doing this almost 50 years. No professional shots, yet.

Do you mean to say that if I buy myself a hammer, that I will be professional home-builder? Or since I own a car, I must be a professional race-driver? Heck, I've got a pencil around here somewhere, I must be a professional writer. No matter the endeavor, the skills make the professional, not the equipment.

[bigjon0107]

Originally Posted by sambarino

You are insinuating that the 'profession' is in the camera. If that were the case, I would be a professional. I most certainly am not. A professional photographer uses the equipment at hand to produce a 'professional photograph'. I am sure I could take a professional's Pentax 645D, or 1DX and produce my same mediocre snapshots of my grandchildren and my cats. No big feat there. A 'professional' could take my T1i, 60D or even my SX260 and make a 'professional photograph'. That is something that will forever elude me. Don't encourage me; I've been doing this almost 50 years. No professional shots, yet.

Do you mean to say that if I buy myself a hammer, that I will be professional home-builder? Or since I own a car, I must be a professional race-driver? Heck, I've got a pencil around here somewhere, I must be a professional writer. No matter the endeavor, the skills make the professional, not the equipment.

I think he was saying that there has always been the excuse of a low barrier of entry...demonstrating that the ones who change, adapt and fine tune will get the business and it has been this way for a long time.

Or I could just be reading into it WAY to much and in that case just ignore what I said

[RDKirk]

You are insinuating that the 'profession' is in the camera.

That was the OP's insinuation.

DC Fan pointed out that with the Kodak Brownie, the most casual amateur could suddenly turn out work technically equal to professionals over 100 years ago, so the answer to the question is clearly "no" or professional photography would have died a century ago.

[Beachcomber Joe]

Originally Posted by DC Fan

The precise date when professional photography died was 112 years ago. That was when Eastman Kodak began selling the Brownie. It was a box camera that was the first to be marketed to the non-professional user. Until 1900, people needed to go to professional photographers to get pictures. After Kodak started selling the Brownie, there was no need for professional photographers, because anyone could buy a Brownie for US $1. and take their own pictures. Because of the Brownie and George Eastman, there has been no professional photography since February of 1900.

I'm sure that professional photographers of that era voiced the same complaints that we hear today from certain pros about DSLRs.

[SuffolkGal]

Interesting thread, just read right through it. Plenty here about what does not make a professional photographer, I'd really like to hear what does.

Jenny

[rjx]

Originally Posted by SuffolkGal

Interesting thread, just read right through it. Plenty here about what does not make a professional photographer, I'd really like to hear what does.

Jenny

What makes a professional photographer?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...l+photographer

^^^ From what I gather, the "what makes a pro ..." topic is kind of played out and people seem to get bothered when it pops up again. Personally, I don't care. Just an observation of mine. Basically, the definition of professional in your dictionary of choice would sum it up if you accept the no thrills summary.

Profession http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profession
Professional http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...al?s=t&ld=1089

Some people will try and get cute and say "this is what professional means to me." But the definition as defined in the dictionary is what it is.

Professionals make money. But not all professionals are experts.