What is real impact of digital on photography profession?

sbrav.TakeThisOut@aol.com (SBrav) writes:

 > I'm new to the group, apologies if this has been discussed ad
 > nauseum here...

More over in rec.photo.digital.

 > I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography
 > as a profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as
 > millions of web sites in need of digital images) Or in the long term
 > will it effectively kill photography as a profession? (by putting
 > easy image capture & manipulation in the hands of everyone) Just
 > wondering how folks expect this to play out over the next 5-10
 > years.

It's purely wonderful. Even now, in the very early days, it's quickly
replacing film in many, many uses, because it's better, easier, and
cheaper.

It's going to kill off the dull, low-paid professional work --
low-quality catalog shots and such. People will do that themselves.
It won't have much impact on the higher-status, higher-paid, more
difficult jobs; people will still need years of practice and lots of
expensive equipment and a good vision to do those, and you don't
acquire all of those by luck or accident.

It may well kill consumer photo-finishing; people may well move to
online presentation, instead of prints, for their snapshots.

I think it's going to buy us a wonderful new generation of
photographers a generation down the road. The people who started
playing with their parents' cast-off 3 megapixel digital camera when
they were 10 years old. I was taking photos younger than that -- but
I was badly constrained by the cost of film and processing, and lots
of kids that age don't have the attention span to learn optimally from
something that takes a few days to get them feedback. Digital gives
them instant feedback. So there will be people with vision but who
wouldn't overcome the tech hurdels before, who will overcome them with
digital to help them along. And there will be people who've focused
their lives on photography from considerably earlier on.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

sbrav.TakeThisOut@aol.com (SBrav) writes:

 > I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as a
 > profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of web
 > sites in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively
 > kill photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture &
 > manipulation in the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect
 > this to play out over the next 5-10 years.

Hi, S.

Nobody knows. That's the easy answer. Amateurs seem to be using digital
because of immediate feedback on each shot and more or less immediate
gratification on the image. Professionals who need that same immediacy are
finding that digital is the only way to get it. Sports photographers and
journalists can email their photos almost immediately from the site.

I'm not sure that digital for the millions of Web sites will have much of
an effect -- most Web sites are amateur, few buy images.

As a profession, photography will continue whether on film or disk. I
expect during the next decade that the switch will be from film to
digital.

But who knows?
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.PhilipStripling.com/" target="_blank">http://www.PhilipStripling.com/</a> | my domain is read daily.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

well, the stats show # of professional photographers is in continuing
decline from 100,000+ in 1980 (wolfman report) to under 63,000 in 1999 (US
Dept Labor Stats). see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/semipro.html for stats

royalty free CDROMs is reducing demand for stock photos; moreover, two
major photo agencies (one owned in part by Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft
fame) control nearly all the stock and photojournalism market I'm told; so
that means fewer photographers...

Many digital photo assignments should also be easily outsourced, with
delivery via internet, to places where labor costs are lower. On the other
hand, travel photographers may be less in demand, as locals at exotic
locations can now be hired more easily over the net and deliver from stock
or on assignment - but without the need to send a local pro overseas for
the shoot.

I have noted elsewhere that surprisingly few of the huge number of users
of digital cameras (many millions) have expanded into conventional
photography (e.g., medium format sales are off up to 50%).

The new 2 to 4+ Megapixel cellphone cameras now being tested in Japan
suggest that everybody will have a digital camera and make decent image
quality images. Probably some weddings have already been photographed by
cellphone cameras only And others have been done on disposable $8.95
cameras too again - another major pro market being lost?

In short, I wouldn't expect the number of pros to go up, given the
observed declines. Lots more people may end up doing digital photography
incidental to their work, but the number of full time pros seems to
continue to decline in the USA...

hth bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

SBrav wrote:

 > I'm new to the group, apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum
 > here...
 >
 > I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as
 > a
 > profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of
 > web sites
 > in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively
 > kill
 > photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture &
 > manipulation in
 > the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect this to play
 > out over the next 5-10 years.

I don't see it as anymore of a threat than 35mm SLRs have been over the
years. People buy a LOT of stuff that they never really learn how to
handle properly.

Fred

--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

SBrav wrote:
 > I'm new to the group, apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum here...
 >
 > I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as a
 > profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of web sites
 > in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively kill
 > photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture & manipulation in
 > the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect this to play out over
 > the next 5-10 years.

I expect that photography will not change much, the medium will change
but the "art" will be unaffected. To know what is happening, you need
to look at media that has gone digital previously, and see how it
affected the process.

Audio is a good example, it went digital about 15 years ago, the process
of taking a song and making it available later on, hasn't changed much,
you still have song, artist, microphone, processing and finally
distribution. However the processing has changed in it's methodology,
and distribution has gone from shipping big plastic platters around, to
electronic methodologies.

Photography is somewhat similar, you have subject, artist, camera,
processing and distribution. With digital you still have a subject, you
still have an artist (the person operating the camera), you still have
processing and you still have distribution. Processing and distribution
are all that really change.

Instead of someone in a dark room swishing chemicals around, they load
the image into a computer, and then do the same stuff they did before, a
little dodging and burning in, a contrast change here and there, maybe a
little touchup to fix a blemish in the original image (like making the
cellulite on a model disappear). Then there is distribution, this can
have big changes, especially for newsies.

The old Beanfaart building downtown caught fire, send the photog, even
though the press run starts in 40 minutes, he/she goes, gets the photos,
dumps them from camera onto a laptop with cellular or microwave modem,
and email story and photos to the editor, they get inserted before the
press gets up to speed. This is different from before when the
photographer had to go, get the photos and story, then take the film
back, the paper had to get it processed and then manually insert the
photos into the press plate before the press could start.

IMNSHO a photographer that takes crappy photos with a film camera, will
probably take crappy photos with a digital camera, the digital ones, may
be technically perfect, but still crappy because the composition is off,
or the angles are wrong.

Paul<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

What makes a question like this hard to answer is that professional
photography isn't a monolithic group, it's a collection of various
specialties, each of which is affected differently by digital.

What hasn't changed is that real quality photographs are most reliably
produced by people with knowledge and experience. Considering the
impact that software tools and workflow procedures can have on quality,
digital may give a greater edge to the knowledgeable professional than
film did. Consider how many hours the average hobbyist may want to
devote to learning photo manipulation, then consider how much more they
might be willing to invest if photography was their job.

Lisa

SBrav wrote:
 >
 > I'm new to the group, apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum here...
 >
 > I'm curious about opinions on digital's real impact on photography as a
 > profession. Has it created new opportunities? (such as millions of web sites
 > in need of digital images) Or in the long term will it effectively kill
 > photography as a profession? (by putting easy image capture & manipulation in
 > the hands of everyone) Just wondering how folks expect this to play out over
 > the next 5-10 years.
 >
 > Gracias!
 > S
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="https://www.geocities.com/bravardmedia</font" target="_blank">https://www.geocities.com/bravardmedia</font</a>><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
 >

 >
 > I think it's going to buy us a wonderful new generation of
 > photographers a generation down the road. The people who started
 > playing with their parents' cast-off 3 megapixel digital camera when
 > they were 10 years old. I was taking photos younger than that -- but
 > I was badly constrained by the cost of film and processing, and lots
 > of kids that age don't have the attention span to learn optimally from
 > something that takes a few days to get them feedback. Digital gives
 > them instant feedback. So there will be people with vision but who
 > wouldn't overcome the tech hurdels before, who will overcome them with
 > digital to help them along. And there will be people who've focused
 > their lives on photography from considerably earlier on.

Good points. Fun to think about the kids as you mention

Lisa<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

The big impact of digital is the slick workflow. You can look at a shot the
minute you have taken it to check for poor exposure, focus, someone
blinking, poor pose etc. You can determine at the shoot exactly when you
have the shots you want, or your customer can. Even if they are on the other
side of the world. It's entirely possible to go from taking the shot, thru
post processing and have a high quality inkjet print in a matter of minutes,
which is simply astounding for a portrait studio.

I think the other effect will be that there are more professionals about
feeding the growing need for images from web sites and magazines. It will be
alot easier for an average photographer to make a living from photography.

The cream will still come to the top, as really good photographers images
will still stand out.
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

"Ron Andrews" <randrew1 DeleteThis @rochesterDOTrr.com> wrote in
news:E6z_b.83484$%72.759@twister.nyroc.rr.com: [...]
 > In a generation, there will be a realization that we are missing a
 > lot
 > of family photos. Only the images printed on good quality paper
 > (thermal, silver halide, and maybe some ink jet) will survive. Most
 > digital image files will not survive 20 years. Either the hard drive
 > will crash or the format will change.
 >
[...]

I used to think that way too, but I'm starting to change my opinion.
Even if my house gets hit with a tornado or a fire, some of my most
important images will survive, because they exist in other locations.

As for the files, obviously nothing is certain, but I'm pretty sure I'll
still have my Photoshop CDs in 20 years, or even 50 years. Same thing
for my Windows install disk. I can still install and run Windows 3.1 and
all the applications I bought nearly 15 years ago, and they mostly still
run. For that matter, I can run Apple II software on my PC in
emulation. It works just as good as it did 20 years ago.

Since DVD drives read CD too, I'm not worried about that either.

In 100 years there might be an issue, but I don't think there will be in
20.

Bob

--
remove the backwards "SPAM" to reply.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
maintenance, of course.

I have digital files that were originally put onto cassette tape in 1977
before floppy drives were available for "home computers" (the term "PC" was
not yet coined). They were later moved to 8" floppies, then 5 1/4", then 3
1/2", and now to CDs and DVDs. In all cases there were multiple copies, on
different media when feasable. I see no reason why that cannot continue
indefinitely, but it will of course require moving the files to new media as
the old ones fade into obsolesence. Those weren't photo files, of course,
but spread sheet files. In those cases it was also necessary to transform
them from Visicalc (anyone remember that software?) to Multiplan, and now
Excel. I suspect that the common image file formats such as JPEG and TIFF
will be around for some time, as they are not proprietary like the spread
sheet formats.

I also have some old 35mm slides taken in the 60's and 70's (unfortunately
in Ectachrome) which have degraded so badly as to be useless as slides, and
probably beyond the point where they can be salvaged using darkroom
techniques. I have, however, in most cases been able to get useable, if not
perfect, prints from them by scanning the slides and processing them
digitally. So color film and prints aren't permanent either, and cannot be
"refreshed" like digital files without losing a little quality in each
cycle.

I think there will probably be a place for both digital and film,
particularly for the professional and perhaps the serious amateur, for the
forseeable future, although Kodak doesn't seem to share this view with much
conviction.

Don


"Ron Andrews" <randrew1 RemoveThis @rochesterDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:E6z_b.83484$%72.759@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
 > This has been discussed ad nauseum in the rec.photo.digital group.
 > Moderation might produce a more useful discussion so I'll take the plunge
 > with my opinions.
 > Digital intermediate is a huge advantage. This is true for
enthusiasts
 > who want to manipulate their images in Photoshop and snapshooters who get
 > better than optical prints from Kodak Perfect Touch processing or Fuji
 > Frontier minilabs. Many amateur pictures suffer from red eye, back
lighting,
 > flash in the face, underexposure, and other tone scale problems. All of
 > these can be improved with digital intervention.
 > Digital photos are made for websites and email sharing. In our mobile
 > culture, this helps to hold families together. I can easily share pictures
 > with relatives from Florida to Alaska.
 > Digital output at kiosks offers while-you-wait copies and
enlargements.
 > Digital output at home is good for the occasional quick print, but a pain
 > for routine use. I prefer to get prints from an on-line service like
Ofoto.
 > Digital capture is great for all of those occasions where we used to
 > use Polaroid (or Kodak Instant if you are old enough to remember). It is
 > quickly moving into the mainstream as current cameras produce very good
 > quality snapshots. Digital cameras that produce good enlargements are
 > becoming more affordable. More cameras are purchased. Many more images are
 > captured. Fewer prints are made.
 > In a generation, there will be a realization that we are missing a
lot
 > of family photos. Only the images printed on good quality paper (thermal,
 > silver halide, and maybe some ink jet) will survive. Most digital image
 > files will not survive 20 years. Either the hard drive will crash or the
 > format will change.
 > Digital has largely replace film in journalism and much of
advertising.
 > It is replacing film for many amateur uses. Film will continue in a
reduced
 > role. Single use cameras will be around for some time. Some niche films
will
 > be discontinued. Some already have.
 >
 >
 > --
 > Ron Andrews
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:21:07 -0800 (PST), sbrav RemoveThis @aol.com (SBrav) wrote:

 >Or in the long term will it effectively kill
 >photography as a profession?

No more so than the Kodak Brownie, the SLR, the Polaroid, and
disposable cameras.

There's a lot more involved in taking a good picture than the type of
camera used -- particularly true of studio photography (amateurs
sometimes get luck in the out-of-doors, but how many good photos have
you see amateurs take of products used in advertising, as just one
example).<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

"Don" <nospam.TakeThisOut@please.org> wrote in message
news:103mtncafv5ao1a@corp.supernews.com...
 > I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
 > years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
 > maintenance, of course.
 >
Agreed. With care and maintenance, digital files will last
indefinitely. Since you are committed to maintain them, they will last you a
lifetime. Will your children and grand children be as committed? If my
grandfathers slides (40-50 years old) had been digital images, they might
have survived in our family. The photo of my great great grandfather shot in
1855 was neglected in a box for many decades. It would not still be here if
it was digital. Image archive experts recommend that for maximum life,
images should be in human readable form.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession? 

"Ron Andrews" <randrew1 DeleteThis @rochesterDOTrr.com> writes:

 > "Don" <nospam DeleteThis @please.org> wrote in message
 > news:103mtncafv5ao1a@corp.supernews.com...
  >> I don't agree with the premise that digital files will not survive 20
  >> years - or 50 or 100 years for that matter. I does take some care and
  >> maintenance, of course.

 > Agreed. With care and maintenance, digital files will last
 > indefinitely. Since you are committed to maintain them, they will last you a
 > lifetime. Will your children and grand children be as committed? If my
 > grandfathers slides (40-50 years old) had been digital images, they might
 > have survived in our family. The photo of my great great grandfather shot in
 > 1855 was neglected in a box for many decades. It would not still be here if
 > it was digital. Image archive experts recommend that for maximum life,
 > images should be in human readable form.

A CD left in a box has non-trivial chances of still being around in
150 years (in the sense of the information being recoverable).
Furthermore, there could be many copies of that CD floating around (in
various branches of the family, say).

150 years from now, I figure I can put the CD in the atomic scanner,
point it at the Red Book spec (or whatever one defines CDs), and have
it figure out what the data means, even if I don't have a CD drive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: What is real impact of digital on photography profession?