Photography In The Digital Age

[graciousness]

I read this article by Nick Turpin yesterday and it was a good food for thought.

From Nick Turpin's website, "sevensevennine" (779)
Photography on the Couch
sevensevennine.com | nick turpin on street photography Blog Archive Photography on the Couch.

I just wanted to share this with fellow DPS'ers who may be wondering about the future of Photography and where it is leading to with the availability of mobile camera phones and cheap point-and-shoots. Nick makes some very good points, I thought, and is worth reading.

Cheers,

Grace

[Doug Pardee]

I dunno. I thought that Turpin's commentary wasn't well thought through, right from the get-go where he says, "Imagine a world were we can all solder copper pipe together and fit a radiator, the job of ‘plumber’ would cease to exist….is that what has happened to the Photographer?" Most jobs exist because people have other things to do, or don't have the tools, or whatever, not because they don't have the ability. The term "profession" is typically used for jobs where people couldn't (adequately) do things for themselves.

Photography is a term that can mean hundreds, maybe thousands, of things. Arguably, it means something different to every person. Turpin waits until almost the end of his essay to tell us what he means by the word photography: "I’m talking about those who have something to say with the medium apart from ‘buy me’." By then I'd become totally confused as to what he was trying to say.

As for his "artistic" viewpoint, I don't see what his concern is. Art isn't about the availability of tools and media. It's about artistry.

[Doug Sundseth]

IMO, the problem isn't with "professional photography" as a category, but with getting paid for "adequate photography" (for lack of a better phrase).

Thirty years ago, getting photos that were good enough was hard in many cases. Hard enough, in fact, that it was usually worth paying someone to do it for you if you weren't an enthusiast. Today, for many (perhaps most) subjects and uses, good enough is obtainable using auto everything.

Art will still be valuable, but it will have to be significantly better than what the average person can get (or have the right signature on the bottom). Well-lit and nicely composed portraiture and event photography will still be valuable, but probably less so, since some parts of that only really need adequate for most customers. And difficult subjects will still need professionals, because the difficulties aren't the sort that an automatic mode can solve (think photographing etched glass sculpture, for instance).

If you want to do simple headshots and get paid enough to buy a vacation home, though, I think you'll likely need to reevaluate your options.

[NathanFranke]

His last paragraph bugs me. I paraphrase it here:

Oh noes! Teh photografy world is changing! Someone figure out how to fix it. Or not. That's cool too. {smiley}

Yeah, these days everyone is a photographer. Everyone is NOT a great photographer, or even a good one. There have been threads lately about the most expensive photograph ever sold, and various other threads, articles, and whatnot about what contemporary photographers we follow.

The responses on those threads, at least from what I remember, are that people follow David Hobby, David DuChemin, and that guy who reviews all the lenses and says that each one is the best. lens. evar!!!! While I wouldn't know DuChemin if he hit me in the head with a monopod, I think Hobby's stuff is pretty good, and consensus on the lens guy is that he's mediocre. The thing is, their work has achieved "great" status by merit of name recognition. They have huge audiences, mainly other photographers who look up to them. They have blogs about photography--showcasing their images isn't the main focus of the site (pun unfortunately inevitable).

In the olden days, few people had access to a darkroom. Making a print was an expensive, time consuming process. Few had the patience or the bank account to make photographs, let alone GOOD photographs. Now, with Flickr, 500px, SmugMug, Photobucket, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Tumblr, Blogspot, MySpace, YouTube, etc, "prints" are cheap. Combined with a culture of Self-Esteem, each post is met with "great shot! Awesome photo!" or silence, regardless of actual quality. It encourages everyone to continue taking the same images, the same way, and no one takes the time to improve their skills.

To conclude where Turpin didn't, 'cause I'm getting into a length where I wouldn't even reread this post: Yeah, the environment is changing. You can lament it and long for bygone days, or you can work within the new constraints of the medium and work to make your stuff kick pixellated ass. By raising the quality of your own work, you give everyone else an idol to emulate or a reason to give up. Either way, the average quality of everyone's work combined goes up.

[MindyRaeL]

Originally Posted by NathanFranke

... Yeah, the environment is changing. You can lament it and long for bygone days, or you can work within the new constraints of the medium and work to make your stuff kick pixellated ass. By raising the quality of your own work, you give everyone else an idol to emulate or a reason to give up. Either way, the average quality of everyone's work combined goes up.

Kick pixellated ass = priceless!

I've heard this same argument said so many times and so many ways, but I love the way you put it.

[Jonbar18]

Say, could you please summarize this article?

Originally Posted by NathanFranke

To conclude where Turpin didn't, 'cause I'm getting into a length where I wouldn't even reread this post: Yeah, the environment is changing. You can lament it and long for bygone days, or you can work within the new constraints of the medium and work to make your stuff kick pixellated ass. By raising the quality of your own work, you give everyone else an idol to emulate or a reason to give up. Either way, the average quality of everyone's work combined goes up.

This. The same technology that is letting everyone become a photographer, lets everyone learn to be a better photographer. Just like when it was hard to be a photographer, most people didn't, its now difficult to be an amazing photographer (mostly time/resource consuming), most people won't. Learn, get better, practice (and market like hell), and you'll be above the rest and stand out.

[sk66]

I see it like this...
Photography as an art for will never die. It is moving more towards the direction of music and painting...which means there is a lot of variety out there and you choose what you like most. Some few will be "photography lovers" and buy various bits of work. Most will just view what's readily available to them. For the enthusiasts and "lovers" the ability/ease to try it for themselves will increase their appreciation for the "talent" or skill required (not equipment).

Photography as a way of making a living is dying. Most do not appreciate the finer points of great photography; the subtleties are lost on them. And if not lost, certainly not worth paying a large premium for. Look in your own home...how many paintings do you have hanging that you paid over $100 for? For most, "good enough" is great, especially if it is also cheap.

I've said before that photography is really just a learnable skill. It is not a "talent" nor "art". "Talent" can turn photography into "art". But as a skill learnable by any, and with equipment available to all, it will be market wages dictated by supply and demand. As "art" the prices will be determined by whim, personal taste, and the supply of what is liked. The supply is huge.