The digital revolution, the great divide and business...

Many photographers have complained about how digital has cheapened the photography business. While I believe this has merit, I also think that the digital age may be working towards giving value to quality photographers.
The vast majority of people now capture their personal family photos with their cell phone cameras. While cell phone cameras have come a long ways, they are a far cry from providing images that rival a competent photographer using quality gear. IMO, the digital age of photography is creating a huge divide between professional quality images and the family cell phone snap shots.....far more than what existed in the past. In turn, this provides the opportunity to market and present a product that stands out and has far more value.
I've gotten to the point where I welcome the P&S/cell phone camera crowd when I shoot an event. I believe their snapshots work in my favor by showing off to a client just how much value quality images have. They often provide a stark contrast of snapshots vs. quality photography. In fact, I even welcome the dSLR wielding uncle/aunt or cousin....but that's just my competitive nature coming out

Is the evolution of digital actually offering better opportunities to the pro photographer?

Thoughts and opinions appreciated

(I have much less experience than most people on this forum)

That's my personal belief, but at the same time I do wonder about that second divide - the DSLR uncle/aunt vs. a knowledgeable photographer. At the university I attend, the most well known photographer shoots with a D200 and 50mm f/1.4 and literally never moves off of f/1.4 and Av mode. There's a lot of overexposure, a lot of shallow dof that completely obliterates a person's face, and a lot of PSing/airbrushing any wrinkles on the face. And although it does work sometimes, it honestly doesn't the majority of the time, and there hasn't been a bad word said against him yet.

It's his style though, and to get back on topic, there is still a stark difference between a DSLR and point-and-shoot on auto settings. At the same time, this means the people with outstanding creative vision and post-processing skills will REALLY stand out...Hopefully.

Nevertheless, I have also seen people with entry-level gear who claim to shoot for magazines. I won't bother with any anecdotes, but it is the second divide that worries me.

I'd say "no" in terms of gaining clients, but the issue is not a matter of the "democratization" of equipment quality.

The real issue is the same thing that affects musicians and journalists, and it has two sides: The acceptance of "good enough because it's cheap enough" on the side of the clients and "they're accepting 'good enough' so that's the best I'll bother to give them" on the side of photographers.

This drags down the level of art and craft to nothing better than the machines can produce with the click of a few buttons Anyone could have set the camera up and shot the picture--the photographers add practically nothing to the image beyond being flesh-based remote shutter releases.

jra wrote in post #12028446
Many photographers have complained about how digital has cheapened the photography business. While I believe this has merit, I also think that the digital age may be working towards giving value to quality photographers.
The vast majority of people now capture their personal family photos with their cell phone cameras. While cell phone cameras have come a long ways, they are a far cry from providing images that rival a competent photographer using quality gear. IMO, the digital age of photography is creating a huge divide between professional quality images and the family cell phone snap shots.....far more than what existed in the past. In turn, this provides the opportunity to market and present a product that stands out and has far more value.
I've gotten to the point where I welcome the P&S/cell phone camera crowd when I shoot an event. I believe their snapshots work in my favor by showing off to a client just how much value quality images have. They often provide a stark contrast of snapshots vs. quality photography. In fact, I even welcome the dSLR wielding uncle/aunt or cousin....but that's just my competitive nature coming out

Is the evolution of digital actually offering better opportunities to the pro photographer?

Thoughts and opinions appreciated

I think digital has opened the entry level of photography wide open but not hurt the true professional much.

With digital the need for a full developed skill set is reduced in the beginning. With film, there was a much greater emphasis in getting the shot right the first time. You didn't shoot 3,000 shots to end up with 300 keepers; you shot 400 shots to get 300 keepers. Each and every shot had a cost to it and you needed every frame to count, there wasn't going to be the "not quite right, lets re-shoot that" opportunity of digital.

I think digital/the internet has also minimized the need to network and develop a series of contact and a general profile. It is a lot easier for people to get their work out there and for people to find/look at photos with digital images and the internet.

I still think for people to make a business of photography you still need to be just as skilled if not more so with digital. It is simply a matter of the lower tier being lower and much wider and therefore harder to break through.

I will go as far as to say to be successful moving forward you are going to need insane skills and have a way to separate yourself from the herd/GWCs or whatever you want to call them in whatever area of photography you are working in. You need to figure out a way to get into a client base that would never base their decisions only on price. That means you are going to need some kind of special skill sets and or real knowledge of a specific area so there is a real reason why a client won't just hire on price alone. If your photographs look like everyone elses and you work in an area of photography that everyone can get to the table then price will probably be the deciding factor and its going to become increasingly difficult to feed the family competing in that environment.

I've seen many a time, 400 shots to get 3 or 4 keepers and they airbrushed them.
Ah it was there film, I was just there to push the button, everybodys.
You do this, ok hold that.

Digital has made the learning curve for the beginners, cheaper.
- Its up to them how much they learn, unfortunately many learn very little, besides, hey I can charge for this and since it don't cost me anything I can do it on the cheap.

For those that do learn and the ones that already know, digital has made learning new ways and trying different approaches much cheaper and faster. There is always a learning curve.

Sadly for some ( clients ) they learn that, their photog Sucks. There curve being, at least it was cheap.

When it was me paying for film, I tried my damnedest to get it right each shot.
With Digital I still try as hard, doesn't take that much more time to get it right or as close as can be,
I may bracket up 1 and down 1, did that at times with film.

I'll take my few " dang those are good " aginst the run and gunners, who spray and pray, any day.

Digital has not cheapened Photography, cheap minded photogs and scavenger hunting clients have cheapened photography. " Scavenger Clients " when you scrounge through refuse, you'll end up with refuse.

If that's the client you want...

The cost of camera equipment and ease of digital had dramatically reduced the learning curve. A lot of people have the expectation that they can make money shooting. My step daughter is pushing her boyfriend to shoot wedding.. He has an T1i-kit lens and no flash..OH MY!!!! I am selling my Rebel 300D to a lady who wants to start making money shooting... Yeah there is a LOT of competition good and bad.

RDKirk wrote in post #12030365
I'd say "no" in terms of gaining clients, but the issue is not a matter of the "democratization" of equipment quality.

The real issue is the same thing that affects musicians and journalists, and it has two sides: The acceptance of "good enough because it's cheap enough" on the side of the clients and "they're accepting 'good enough' so that's the best I'll bother to give them" on the side of photographers.

This drags down the level of art and craft to nothing better than the machines can produce with the click of a few buttons Anyone could have set the camera up and shot the picture--the photographers add practically nothing to the image beyond being flesh-based remote shutter releases.

Yeah, although your works may be above average, your clients may not care to the point that he or she would pay extra for your works.

TooManyShots wrote in post #12033220
Yeah, although your works may be above average, your clients may not care to the point that he or she would pay extra for your works.

Then you need new clients

(paraphrased as I remember it)

Kodak started it with their "Brownie" in the early 1900's. It cost a whooping $10 a copy and introduced a few generations to the joy of photography. Suddenly anyone could take a picture. Japan was next to the party 1st with 24 and 10mm cameras on the low end and 35mm SLR's on the medium and high end. The medium format folks cried foul! You could drop off a roll of film at almost every drug store and even some 7-11's!

Canon and a few dozen other companies sell 10's of millions of digital P&S cameras (costing less than $200) that if you confine you picture taking to some functional limitations, more often than not are able to take well exposed and in focus images that sometimes have fairly correct color. (with mostly NO operator experience. Clearly "point and shoot")

The digital age has truly opened a new world in photography. Instant feedback. Digital editing. ANYONE can pickup a camera and use freely downloadable software to get some outstanding effects that once required master image makers decades of experience and hours upon hours of editing.

No longer is decent photography only within the hands of the few that can afford it. Online forums, books, videos all come together with instant feedback to enable todays photographer starting out almost unlimited resources for learning, training and support.

However, just like the Kodak Brownies 100 years ago, there will be those that would rather not be bothered to purchase one. There are one time and infrequent users who can't seem to get a decent image out of the little technology wonder if their life depended on it. Lastly, there will be those who will wield the tool like they were born with it and will produce stunning and awe inspiring images with the P&S and more expensive/complicated imaging devices as they grow tired of the lessor tools.

mcluckie wrote in post #12030745
If that's the client you want...

Not sure who you were responding too or exactly what you mean....please expand your thought

airfrogusmc wrote in post #12033565
Then you need new clients

There are some fields, though, that appear to now to consist almost fully of "it's good enough 'cause it's cheap enough" clients. Photojournalism, for instance. Yes, that means moving into a wholly different field, which is why you see PJs going into wedding photography.

Actually, I disagree with a lot of the things the OP has said.

Compare a low end consumer grade film camera from the 80's or 90's to a low end consumer grade digital camera today (lets say cheap cell phone) and I think you will find that the photos from the cheap cell phone are way better. The gap has closed.

My el-cheapo camera back when I was in college was a $40 point-and-shoot which used advantix film, had no manual controls at all (except for flash) and focused to infinity for almost every single shot. Even in bright sunlight, the prints I got (from Wolf or the local drugstore) were not sharp at all.

$40 will buy you at least 4 megapixels and a lot better results today.

As for the 'divide' between professional and non-pro photos..... I disagree

A $400 G12 or the new NX10 mirrorless cameras will rival most DSLRs in decent light, and be nigh indistinguishable at print sizes (or smartphone/tablet resolutions).

The only difference I see is that photographers today need more ancillary skills and equipment than in the past because their clients can spend 1/3 the money they are giving a tog for a *very good* camera if they are so inclined.

I think what always seems to get missed in these kinds of discussions is the ability of a very good photographer to see in the deepest sense of the word. I think photographers that have real vision will always be able to find a niche and separate themselves from the herd no matter what type of equipment they use and will always find away to get to a client that does see and appreciate the difference.

You can buy your way to easier technique but the vision part is the real part and is infinitely more difficult and if your stuff looks like everyone elses which is the case most of the time then everyone else will be your competition and thats a hard road especially in todays world where technical issues are not as big a deal as they once were.