Has digital photography made commercial photographers poor?

“Then again, it comes from an old-time photographer so it’s not that astounding.”

 

 

Bigoted broad brushing.

Not that astounding.

It will be a great day when the breed of digital photographers who never shot on film stop feeling so threatened and offended every time at the slightest perceived hint of criticism towards digital.

That will never happen, because there will always be some b*tthurt crybabies who will hate objective criticism. Always.

It is a great day now.

I shoot film which I enjoy.

I shoot digital which I need from time to time.

I have re-introduced Kodak film new to the market, on backorder and a two reel developer can awaiting completion of the second roll of film from the “new” F2.

The Whiners are irrelevant beyond internet amusement.....

And my sense is that the only so-called “image culture” associated with digital photographers is the one some film photographers seem to fabricate for whatever variety of nonsensical reasons.

 

The myth is that because people shoot digitally for their own amusement and occasionally get a decent enough photo of their kids to show off to friends that they’ve all suddenly lost their minds and think they’re of the caliber of a professional.

 

Well, it’s a lot of malarky is what it is. Folks still go to museums to see photo exhibits and they still hire pros for weddings and family portraits. They’re not quite as stupid as the old-time film aficionados would like to make out. That they can take a decent picture themselves does not mean they can’t recognize the skill of and better results achieved by talented, experienced photographers.

 

The idea, as expressed by JDM, that non-photographers think everyone with a digital camera is an expert is both ludicrous and condescending. Then again, it comes from an old-time photographer so it’s not that astounding.

 

I should clarify what "image culture" means to me, because it may mean something different to someone else. I'm not putting any kind of judgement on it. Image culture to me is the explosion of images produced due to the fact that most people carry around a camera capable of sending photos to anyone they wish almost instantly. Photos have become a regular part of our online conversations through apps like Instagram, snapchat, whatsapp, and the default messaging apps on our phones. Even email.

 

I don't believe that the advent of digital cameras has suddenly made everyone think they're as a good as a professional photographer, but I do think it's made easier for them to get the pictures they like without having to hire a professional. And It's not strictly about digital vs film. Cameras were getting smarter in the film days as well. Digital technology has just accelerated it. Consumers also have access to post processing tools that they didn't before. Photos that don't look so great on the camera can be altered through free or low cost software applications. Again, somebody who's highly skilled in post processing can do a lot more than your average consumer, but the tools are getting more sophisticated and easier to use all the time.

 

Smartphone manufactures often tout the capabilities of cameras when marketing them. Look at how Apple pushes the portrait mode on their new phones. They're telling people your phone is all you need for great pictures. That's not to say that digital technology has completely eliminated the need or desire for professionals. It's just made it easier for non-professionals to get great results without a professional.

When a picture is worh a 1000 words in a grammar ignorant IPhone saturated vanity obsessed society, that is losing the ability to write and spell, "image culture" is a perfectly apt descriptor.

 

Back to picture books and cave drawings as communication currency.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moving On

They're telling people your phone is all you need for great pictures.

Just like soap and shave cream companies are telling men if they use their products they'll have the body and looks of Brad Pitt from 15-20 years ago. Now, thankfully, that happens to be true of my boyfriend's soap and shaving cream, but not for any other men I know! :)

 

Maybe this is a conversation about advertising, I don't know anymore. But advertisers convincing consumers of things that are untrue are not unique to cell phones and digital cameras.

 

In any case, even though my boyfriend buys the right soap and is clean-shaven with a ruggedly handsome smell of menthol, he still pays a trainer at the gym. Go figure! :rolleyes:

digital photographers who never shot on film

 

What's your take on digital photographers who have used film as well?

You can write Shakespeare on an iPhone but that's besides the poi

Uh no you can't.

You can copy Shakespeare on an IPhone.

Since it's next to impossible to get the film pundits to post work even close to the same zip code as what the mods pull out as their favorite digital shots each month you can see why the anger is there. "My box of kodachromes is better than that digital junk where you took 3000 shots to get the right one". Ok, lets see them. {insert nasty, cliche' response about how film is craft and digital is imaging}. It's the anti-digital guys attacking because digital shooters don't care. Not the other way around.

 

A poster in this thread said recently "I enjoy film". So what. I enjoy hanging with my GF and not fiddling with Fixer and reversal chemistry. I have work I hand printed all over C-suites in the city back when I did fine art wet lab printing, and I don't care. Photography ultimately involves sharing images,...That's what we do in most of the topic forums here, except for, you know, the film based ones.......It's like reading posts from people who hate computers and the internet, but need to share that via a computer and the internet. If you enjoy you darkroom so much and exposing film, then go back to it. Trust me...the hipsters taking HP5 to Walmart need your help more than we need convincing exposing film and the feel of your wind lever is more important than sharing the final image.

 

This, in respect is a contributing factor to the commoditization of commercial photography. The demise of magazine and press print combined with immediate availability of online image archives has seriously changed the landscape of commercial photography. A friend of mine who owns a successful Ad Agency gripes about this all the time. 20 years the problem was getting a decent stock image and fighting with photographers. Now since film isn't inhibiting creativity and getting in the way the problem is choosing the perfect image from hundreds of candidates.

. It's the anti-digital guys attacking because digital shooters don't care. Not the other way around.

 

Uh so you must be a film guy, no wait........

Walmart need your help more than we need convincing exposing film and the feel of your wind lever is more important than sharing the final image.

Who said that?

Got a link?

You're tilting windmills here......

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moving On

Funny how this thread seems to have turned into a film vs digital debate. I wasn't arguing from that standpoint. I shoot digital as much or more than film. If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd choose digital just because of the convenience it offers. Thankfully I don't have to choose because I really enjoy shooting film.

 

My opinion in general is that we've reached a point in time where technology (automation, ai, whatever) will be eliminating more well-paying jobs than it creates. Photo technology isn't an exception and I think that there are fewer people who can make a living as a photographer as a result.

When a picture is worh a 1000 words in a grammar ignorant IPhone saturated vanity obsessed society, that is losing the ability to write and spell, "image culture" is a perfectly apt descriptor.

 

Back to picture books and cave drawings as communication currency.

 

I definitely make fun of my 14 year old's communications with her friends via snapchat and other apps. She'll take pictures that add zero value to the conversation. But there's no doubt that being able to incorporate images into a real-time conversation adds back some of what's lost when you communicate via pen and paper or an old fashioned phone call. My guess is that kids actually do a lot more writing (or typing) than we did at their age. They just do it in shorter bursts.

Interesting observations.......

 

"E-readers and tablets are becoming more popular as such technologies improve, but research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages"

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens

Interesting observations.......

 

"E-readers and tablets are becoming more popular as such technologies improve, but research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages"

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens

 

With a lot of technological advances there are things that the new technology doesn't do as well as the technology it's replacing, - especially early on. The new technology might be a huge improvement overall, but that doesn't mean the old technology won't be missed or doesn't have applications for which it might be a better choice.

 

I recently went on a vacation. I packed two paperbacks as well as an iPad. Due to a late season winter storm and a canceled flight, I got an extra day of vacation but I had run out of reading material. So I downloaded a book onto my iPad and thoroughly enjoyed enjoyed reading it on my flight home.

 

To me it's not a question of which is better. They both have their pros and cons and I'll choose whichever works best for me at the moment.

 

I also packed two small underwater digital cameras and a higher-end compact digital. I really wanted to bring a film camera too but do to some recent purging all I had was two SLRs and TLR. They were bigger than what I wanted to be carrying around on this trip. So now I'm looking for a small rangefinder for next time.

It seems people put identity into the label, "film shooter" or "digital shooter". Like this tribe or that tribe. Personally, when I look at photos and try to get what's going on with them, the question of whether it was shot with film or digitally is at the bottom of the list. In my mind, I still like what I believe is the look of film, but practically, I'm almost a 100% digital.

I think there is a greater difference between mirrorless and non-mirrorless camera users than between film and digital camera users.

I think there is a greater difference between mirrorless and non-mirrorless camera users than between film and digital camera users.

 

Really?