An example why photography will only continue to devalue

Removed

People skills, posing skills, composition, etc., are not improved with the Sony A7. Another reason why good photographers will continue to make a living.

Scott

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16593519
I recently bought a Sony A7. Shooting in "M" in t could not be easier as there are no excuses not to get everything exposure right in camera before you even press the shutter. A full frame digital viewfinder changes the game massively.

What is more I can upload directly to my phone (full resolution) and edit with Photoshop Touch. I can then upload directly to the web. I can watermark and resize the images if I want too. Not a computer in sight and the potential to shoot, edit and deliver images electronically on the fly.

As more an more cameras find their way into the marketplace with such great and easy to use technology the there is less and less skill required for getting exposures correct etc.

If you think things are tough now they are only going to get exponentially tougher... and fast. The learning curve is just disappearing the more technology marches on.

Kids today are so tech savvy, tacking photo's and manipulating them is just an extension of that. OTOH to actually KNOW what you are doing and get the results you desire on a consistent basis AND make those results worth paying for takes a lot of knowledge.

Anybody can take a few pictures, very few can sell them. Your point that the photography industry is contracting is valid, it will become more of an art than a profession.

I just take pictures, I'm not a photographer and I am teaching myself to use some lights and equipment to take my own family portraits as well as pictures that I like of the things that are important to me. I am probably one of the lost customers due to DSLR's and the fact that photography is easier to learn and provides immediate gratification in that I can run home and DL my photos and post them to facebook for my family to see within an hour of taking them.

It is good for people like me but I do understand how it impacts people who have made photography a career. To me it seems that the biggest challenge to photographers is actually getting paid for weddings.

scobols wrote in post #16593540
People skills, posing skills, composition, etc., are not improved with the Sony A7. Another reason why good photographers will continue to make a living.

Scott

Good points, getting family to pose is difficult for me. My method of encouragement tends to be "sit still dammit". I'm working on it.

^ This. The gear contributes only 1% to a good photograph. Subject, lighting, composition, point of view and a score of other skills have nothing to do with how easy it is to get an image distributed.

Ahh...the old "your camera takes nice pictures" theme. My wife's stove cooks great meals too!

jcolman wrote in post #16593582
Ahh...the old "your camera takes nice pictures" theme. My wife's stove cooks great meals too!

I giggled.

Removed

Removed

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16593597
What you all are missing is that without having to learn the technical stuff, not practice to the same degree as say you had to on film the time is available to spend honing the other skills. The number of good photographers will increase.

In all the FB groups I've been in (lots over the last few years) there has been a noticeable step up from people entering the industry. What I mean by that is the speed at which many are improving is remarkable (say from buying a camera for the first time to one year in of owning it). Why? Because the practice and hard yards that used to be obligatory aren't anymore. Kids are learning composition from being toddlers taking pictures on iPads and parents phones.

WhidbeyHiker FWIW getting paid to shoot weddings has only about 20% tops to do with the images that you take.

You took my comment to literally, it was a stab at the fact that there are frequent discussions on this forum about NOT getting paid for weddings, or people suddenly becoming unhappy with the photos after receiving them.

The core issue your discussing is a valid point, BUT we see it differently. I am one of those people who wouldn't be doing this as a hobby if it wasn't for DSLR's. You seem to see it as a negative, I see it as a positive. However, you're really talking about a niche, nobody pays a photographer to run around and take candid shots, my photos of eagles and landscapes are not going to make it onto a magazine cover. The only thing a photographer may lose out on is an occasional family portrait. My owning a camera is no financial threat to any professional photographer with the exception of the guy who sets up for portraits at the local dept store.

Understanding what those 'dials' do is important, but is pretty much meaningless if a person doesn't have the vision to use them to support a finished image. The learning curve for this latter portion is steep, I'd suggest.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16593608
You can jest all you want Jim. I've been giving novices the A7 to try with very basic instructions on the 3 main dials use and you'd be amazed with the results they get.

ISO... lighter/darker
Shutter speed... moving/not moving
Aperture... more or less in focus

With just 5 minutes explaining away they go.

Your wife's stove doesn't show you what the meal looks and tastes like before you cook it though does it? I always find that analogy so poor and generally coming from old school dinosaurs who are stuck in their ways.

Removed

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16593629
Now where exactly have I said it was a bad thing? I think it is a good thing.

The fact that photography is devaluing (and rightly so) I have no issues with. It is entirely logical and consistent with the economics at play.

Ahh, then in that case, cheers. I believe the market will contract, I think it means that to be considered a professional and sell to magazines, etc. you're going to have to have a pretty special skill set.

Besides, knowing WHAT to shoot and finding different ways to shoot it is harder than actually understanding DOF, shutter speed and ISO.

I have always wanted to show my skills as being more worthy of those who have a nice camera and think they can get just as great of shots. I had my opportunity at the last wedding I did which was performed at sunset on the north shore of Lake Superior in northern Minnesota.

This was my niece and a freebie to her and when I arrived it turned out she also had a good friend travel there from Colorado who was expecting to be the photographer as well. He was quite good at action photography shooting skate boarders in the snow and had a Nikon.

Then of course there was my other niece who charges as a Facebook photographer using a Canon 7D.

What occurred was at sunset the sun was going down directly behind the ceremony, which made it shine on all the wedding guests faces. Everyone was shading their eyes and since the lake was opposite the bride and groom there was no other angles that could be shot other than of those with the sun behind them and shining just as bright off the water.

When all photo's came back, mine were well exposed with all colors looking brilliant. The lake was showing in the photograph exposed the same as the couple, and the light hitting my lens had very little negative impact on the photo's while still showing the sun in the photo's of the bride and groom.

Other photographers shots came out, but the sun had completely washed out much of the shot, the colors were muddy and way off, and the light had hit their lens and negatively impacted the photo's.

All those nice cameras can take their programmatic approach to exposure and get it right the majority of time, but the skills of a good photographer will always beat even the best out of the camera in difficult lighting situations.

The general public has devalued photography with the attitude that all we are is a nice camera, and this insults our ability to make those decisions in composition and exposure that only experienced photographers can make.

Great photographers and even good ones will always be better than what the camera can do with it's complicated algorithms in exposure. It is still only making a guess since the camera can't really reason. To those uneducated or naive about photography it may be devalued, but in reality the difficult situations always prove the photographers worth and skills.

Look at driving a car, has all this technology devalued professional race car drivers? Bad drivers are becoming better with the aid of anti-lock brakes, lane departure, stability control, even collision avoidance... But send that average driver out on the track with the professionals and they will get stomped. When cameras start photographing by themselves like future cars will be driving themselves, then we as photographers may feel the devaluation. We still have our creativity, but by then camera makers may have created an artificial intelligence to be creative as well and simply bracket all shots in difficult lighting to get at least one shot by the 'spray and pray' method.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16593519
I recently bought a Sony A7. Shooting in "M" in t could not be easier as there are no excuses not to get everything exposure right in camera before you even press the shutter. A full frame digital viewfinder changes the game massively.

What is more I can upload directly to my phone (full resolution) and edit with Photoshop Touch. I can then upload directly to the web. I can watermark and resize the images if I want too. Not a computer in sight and the potential to shoot, edit and deliver images electronically on the fly.

As more an more cameras find their way into the marketplace with such great and easy to use technology the there is less and less skill required for getting exposures correct etc.

If you think things are tough now they are only going to get exponentially tougher... and fast. The learning curve is just disappearing the more technology marches on.

You've just described the last century of development of camera equipment.

Everything since George Eastman released the first Kodak Brownie has been dedicated to making cameras less expensive and easier to use.

Three quarters of a century ago, the Speed Graphic was the standard sports and photo journalism camera. A sucessful photographer needed to learn how to work the Graphic's two shutters. wire frame viewfinders, manipulate the film backs and not run out of flashbulbs, while still pointing the camera in the right direction. Graphics were complex cameras that only a few people could master.

A half century ago, Eastman Kodak made a move to popularize photography. In the 1960's a typical home hobbyist camera such as the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye used 120 rollfilm that needed to be carefully loaded into the camera. Countless rolls were ruined when they accidentally unspooled when being loaded. Kodak's response was the development of the Instamatic, which used pre-loaded film cartridges. The Instamatic revolutionized hobbyist photography and turned millions of people into photographers.

Camera development didn't stop there.

A quarter-century later, Edwin Land created another revolution with the development of the Polaroid SX-70. The camera and its instant film cartridges attracted even more people because of its exceptional ease of use. The SX-70 remains among the best-selling single-lens reflex cameras in history.

A generation later, Minolta created another revolution wih the Maxxum series of autoexposure and autofocus 35mm SLR's. The Maxxum series introduced a new generation of people to the benefits of SLR photography with its ease of use.

Another generation later, Eastman Kodak started developing digital cameras. They progressed to the point that the company was able to start converting Nikon film SLR's for digital use by magazines and newspaper. These cameras originally cost US $20,000, but development never stopped. Now we're at the point whre a good digital DSLR costs US $500.

These cameras have never been more affordable and easier to use, but one factor has remained unchanged from the days of Matthew Brady. The skill of the person operating the camera is more important than the label on the equipment or its price. The best photographers still offer a value to their work that is beyond price tags.

Newcomers don't realize this. They see a stylish fashion image and ask what sort of lens or camera it would take to do the same thing. Their inexperience means they don't realize that those images take extensive experience and talent with lighting and post processing, and then they're not interested in taking the time - which may take years - to learn those techniques and develop their own styles.

It's never been easier to buy a camera that can generate a technically acceptable picture. But the skills to use those cameras to generate an exceptional images are unchanged. Look at the number of messages on this forum from people who are confounded by the techniques to create basketball or hockey images, people who probably buy megabuck cameras without learning how to set those camera up to meet the challenge. Add those people who ask what brand of lighting to use without trying to lean the most effective way to use those lights, and are then disappointed when their pictures don't look just like those generated by a photographer with decades of experience.

Equipment does not equal experience, skill or ability. As long as that's the case, there's no reason for photographers who can generate exceptional images to fear 21st-century gadgets.