Two questions about economics and job creation in our field/profession

This question is for anyone who has more knowledge about economics than I do - that means you don't have to know very much. ;-)

 

Here are the questions:

 

Q1. If more of us shot with film than we do now, would that create more jobs? Keep in mind that I am not making a prescription, I'm just asking a question. I think it's fair to say that digital photography is much more cost efficient than film photography. It's also possible that digital cameras have helped create more photographers, which means more jobs.

 

Q2. If yes to Q1., would it still be better to stay with the more efficient digital paradigm, even though in the short term it creates fewer jobs? After all, unemployment numbers aren't exactly terrible right now, depending in which country you live.

 

Here are some things that I have been thinking about around this question:

 

Oils ain't oils and jobs ain't jobs. Economists classify industry as either primary, secondary or tertiary. Fewer jobs in primary sectors, such as mining, means more jobs in secondary sectors, such as steel and motor vehicle manufacturing.

 

Cheaper iron ore leads to cheaper steel which leads to cheaper cars, which means more people can afford cars, which means that more cars will be made, which means more people have to be employed to make and sell them.

 

Energy is a secondary sector (AFAIK), and you want that to be as efficient as possible. Energy production feeds back into the primary sector and feeds forwards into the tertiary sector. Cheaper energy means cheaper iron ore, and cheaper cars. Dealerships have lower power bills, so they can be more flexible on either price or warranties. So you want as few jobs as possible in the energy sector.

 

Making cameras is a secondary industry. Taking photographs would be, I think, a tertiary industry. An interesting note: about 80% of American jobs are tertiary jobs.

 

It would be interesting to see how many jobs are created by making more digital cameras compared to making more film. When everyone shot film, film itself was the consumable. Of course there were batteries to buy, too. Digital cameras themselves can be seen as consumables in some way, as photographers upgrade their cameras more often.

 

There were apparently more manufacturers involved in film photography. You could be shooting a Leica camera with a Mitsubishi button cell to power the light meter; Fuji film; and Kodak developer. Or a Hasselblad camera with Duracell AA's, Agfa film and Ilford developer. Very few cameras had their own dedicated batteries. There was a big mix of cameras, lenses, emulsions, developers and batteries. Some people would have preferred a simpler market, but I prefer a more diverse one.

 

Digital photography pretty much decimated profits from stock photography, although that can be partially offset by submitting more photographs. But that can't go on forever, as there are only so many extra photos you can submit, and the price for stock can be as low as literally zero. If you're going to submit to stock agencies, you won't be shooting film for that, as it will take much longer to make back your investment.

 

So, what say you, economists?

Kodak employed 120000 people in 1973. Now 18000, so yes. But in the scale of all the world, 120000 is not a huge number. They were the number one company in the industry.

But now a lot of sensors are made, more optical glass, (the lenses are bigger and heavier) and on... More chips, electronics, more CAD, etc... As for AA batteries, I don't have any stats, you can dig down into analytics of Energizer, TDK, Varta. etc for 30 years... it is not an easy question.

China was the poorest country in 1970s, now it's a huge consuming market... the USSR was behind the iron curtain, but now it is an open market, so are Eastern Block countries and on... This is not an easy question...

I'm not an economist and it's been a long, long time since my economics classes at school.

 

I think your assumption that increased (cheaper) supply leads to increased demand holds true for some goods and services in some national economies but not generally. It holds true where there is a "latent" demand which is as yet unsatisfied due to a relatively high price level (costs of production/delivery) in relation to the level of disposable income. The 1950's and 1960's saw a 'supply-driven" economy in Europe and the US as the latent demand for "luxury" consumer goods (cars, TV's, refrigerators, etc.) was satisfied as prices dropped through mass production and the level of incomes rose. This is undoubtedly still true for many local economies across the world.

 

Economies are fundamentally based on "value". With any level of disposable income, people - in general - buy goods and services that have the most value to them at the price they have to pay for them. There are goods and services that for some people have no intrinsic value, no matter how low the price is. It's also true that once the "latent demand" for a product or service has been satisfied, lower prices don't mean that people will consumer more of it. Of course it's also true that as societies develop and change, so does the "value" of specific goods and services. "Color" TV's (and later flat screen) TVs were once exclusive and relatively expensive.:)

 

I read here that the use of film is making a comeback, mainly because of their novelty value for some young photographers. But I think your question is academic in the sense that film photography is still a small niche market these days. A few film photographers more or less won't change that much. Like it or not, photography - like many other industries like design, manufacturing,communications, media - has entered the 'digital age' and there's really no going back. I expect mirror-less cameras to get ever better and smaller to the extent that they replace DSLR's and eventually become a modular attachment to - or are integrated with - your phone (or 'personal digital assistant").

 

The photography industry (like many others) has changed a lot and is still changing. Digital cameras decimated jobs related to producing and processing consumable film. Perhaps more people started using digital cameras than had used film cameras, which may have created more jobs in the production and distribution of digital cameras and accessories. These days, more and more people regard their phone as their 'digital camera'.

 

I suspect that there are now more jobs available in selecting, processing and using digital images (from various sources) than in creating the images.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

This question is for anyone who has more knowledge about economics than I do - that means you don't have to know very much. ;-)

 

Here are the questions:

 

Q1. If more of us shot with film than we do now, would that create more jobs? Keep in mind that I am not making a prescription, I'm just asking a question. I think it's fair to say that digital photography is much more cost efficient than film photography. It's also possible that digital cameras have helped create more photographers, which means more jobs.

 

Q2. If yes to Q1., would it still be better to stay with the more efficient digital paradigm, even though in the short term it creates fewer jobs? After all, unemployment numbers aren't exactly terrible right now, depending in which country you live.

 

Here are some things that I have been thinking about around this question:

 

...

If more of us shot with film than we do now, would that create more jobs?

From a certain point on most likely: "Yes".

As another non-economist, I could (in theory) at least sit down and figure out how many boxed cans of 35mm you 'd have to sell to per year, to justify operating an in-house offset printshop, with a full sheet 5c press, to produce the boxes.

 

But let's stay simple and look at the past:

First of all: Money has always been tight or at least limited; i.e.: A honorable average person can't spend a dollar twice. For that reason there must be a photography related limited budged. If I am mean, I dare to assume: "An average Joe (around me) upgrades their smart phone every 2 years. Camera module in the phone is $70, so the photo budged is $35 p.a. + $5 shrapnel (<- the odd print those folks might order) and maybe another $4 for photo services (like passport pictures).

Back in the days people had something plain SLR or P&S and did maybe burn 3 rolls p.a. happy-snapping this or that, at least on vacation. Drugstore processed supermarket film must have been in the budged. Some shot more, like 1 roll / vacation day, very few "a lot" and very many "less".

 

I will not deny that all the 1h labs or camera stores I'm recalling from the 80s, that don't exist anymore in my home town, had employees. OTOH: The phones & contracts selling kiosks I am seeing now everywhere (i.e. at roughly the same density) didn't exist those days. - So probably no huge difference on the domestic retail frontier?

 

The difference I see between film and digital is the increased number of pictures taken and the ease of receiving them.

I guess it is fair (or acceptable) to beg others to email me cell phone snaps they took of me, for free. - Considering their hassle to get negs containing me re-printed, I 'd owe them a snack or more.

 

Big money spent on either digital or film goes abroad anyhow. I doubt anybody will try to battle Fuji Kodak Ilford and the less known brands (Forte, Foma, Bergger...) with anything made in Germany. - It was done in the past but now even the pretzels I'll buy later are made and frozen in Poland and machine baked in the nearby supermarket.

 

IDK who your imagined film customer is. - My dad does indeed give his out of house and supports jobs that way. - I'd soak & (maybe...) print mine here at home. The job most likely created by me, shooting film, would be at Scan Cafe or a similar foreign place.

 

Is creating jobs by using a process that "produces for the trash can" worth it? - I jobbed at a long roll studio. They had every session they took printed hoping to sell a lot of it and binned what they didn't sell. - How about proofs of an average roll? How needed are they, if at all?

 

I see no sense in looking at the money economy. Amateurs will always run out of supplies and average people are in debt or urged to keep their pennies together. I see digital as a huge step towards finally getting closer to having enough images and that as a way to make more people happier.

When I went on a week long trip with school during 6th grade, I was given two 110 cassettes, with 36 or less frames in total or about 1.5 frames per co travelling class mate.

Today I 'd lend an interested kid my damn old DSLR and an hour's (not great) wage would buy a card for more than 1000 RAW files i.e. 40 frames per class mate.

 

Digital entered other realms too and killed jobs. - Is it for good or worse? - Decide yourself. We are typing into an Internet forum; i.e. publishing text. - If we had the stamina to write an entire novel it would be most likely a file, maybe needing layout and proof reading but otherwise ready to print. - Would you fancy working as a type setter? Picking & arranging each and every letter of that novel by hand? - Retyping it on a Linotype?

Reliving every math exam you had by calculating lenses with just slide rule pen & paper?

Digital cameras themselves can be seen as consumables in some way, as photographers upgrade their cameras more often.

??? - I had film cameras falling apart or getting binned for not being worth their repair cost too. So they were as consumable as their digital counterparts! The fact that a lot of old depreciated digitals exist changes very little. - I guess there is always somebody poor enough to appreciate getting hold of them? - The electrified world's population can't be saturated yet with EOS 300D level digitals.

Film is no longer competitive in terms of quality, incremental cost and productivity. I doubt any customers care that you use a more costly, labor intensive process. It's the results that count. The same in other areas. Socialism places value on the effort needed to produce a certain output. Capitalism values the amount produced for the same effort. Unlike government, nobody forces you to pay for a photographer.

 

Q1. If more of us shot with film than we do now, would that create more jobs?

 

Yes. But a one line theoretical answer does not a discussion make...

 

I expect that it would have to be quite a large numbers of photographers that would have to take up using film. Once that critical mass is reached, then certainly more jobs would be created. Also once that critical mass is reached, it is a reasonable postulation that there would be spin-off industries that would grow.

 

An example of spin off industry, is, where I live, the recent increased interest in vinyl records has sparked an increase in the more traditional pre-amp/power-amp audio chain, rather than opting to buy a (newer style) turntable with USB and Bluetooth outputs. The Technician who has looked after my audio gear for several years has seen an increase in work in the last three years, yet five years ago was thinking of retiring due to lack of work. The new customers he has are all 'young people' who have the 'vinyl craze' (his words).

 

So it is reasonable to assume that more jobs would be created in direct and indirect Photography industries. For example as a direct industry, Printing Labs could see growth; as an example of an indirect industry, production, management and safety of certain Hazardous Materials might see increase.

 

***

 

Q2. If yes to Q1., would it still be better to stay with the more efficient digital paradigm, even though in the short term it creates fewer jobs? After all, unemployment numbers aren't exactly terrible right now, depending in which country you live.

 

Acknowledging this is a general question and a casual conversation, however I do think that “better” needs some definition within any response.

 

Also I think that it relevant to point out that this is a false conclusion - (my paraphrasing): ‘If more people use film people then there will be more jobs created . . . therefore . . . the digital paradigm in the short term will create fewer jobs’

 

Those points stated, if we define ‘better’ as what would be ‘better generally’ for societies as a whole, then I think the real world bottom line is: because it would require such a very large number of people to take up using film to make any significant difference and then that significant difference would be growing against the growth of other output related industries, (for example irrespective of how many take up film, there would still be the rapid growth of development and sales of mobile phone cameras and the related growth of those devices outputs to social media platforms), the overall costs in time, effort, and money in turning back the wheel to get to that critical mass required would be too great to ever reap a profit in terms of any ‘economic’ standard.

 

WW

If more of us shot with film than we do now, would that create more jobs?

Wouldn't it also be the case that if more of us shot digital, that would create more jobs as well? If the creation of jobs is the goal of this questioning, I'd think it would be much easier, given today's needs and desires and population distribution, to create more new jobs with advances in digital photography than in film photography. Sure, a resurgence in radio as a means of communication and entertainment would create new jobs and they might be very welcome. But I sense it would be much more feasible to create more new jobs with advances in what TVs deliver than what radio delivers. I'm one who still loves to listen to the radio, just as I'm one who still loves film (even though I don't use it) and still appreciates that people use it. Nevertheless, I think job creation is often a future-oriented business and I think there's more future in terms of commercialism and jobs, in digital than film. I'm not an economist and may have misunderstood some of your question, but that's the best I can do.

Wouldn't it also be the case that if more of us shot digital, that would create more jobs as well? . . .

 

Yep.

 

As mentioned, I also think there is a false conclusion lurking in the Opening Post.

 

Also expanding on your key point (cited above), the Opening Post asks about more people shooting film, that does not necessarily mean that it cannot be that more people will shoot digital; nor does it mean that the more people shooting film will necessitate those same people are the ones not shooting any digital, nor shooting more digital.

 

Economic statements, to be addressed concisely need precision: and this is a Casual Conversation, so we are somewhat in no mans land, in my opinion.

 

I think that a general opinion at the expense of an exacting precision answer is a good way for the conversation to go: that's not any directive and nor should it be interpreted as such, that is simply me putting my responses, which typically stray toward the technical/literal, in a more casual perspective.

 

WW

I. can't get too deep with this but I know a couple people who make a living at photography. One is a mid sized city photojournalist. His job has changed considerably, in that the "newspaper" he once worked for is no now an online news source. Much of what they want is "content" which, by most accounts, means "just shoot a bunch of stuff for us to pst on our website. Hs coverage of sporting and other events gets press, but he, as the "senior" photog, is under pressure from all sides.

 

The other person I know who makes a living in photography ;lives in NYC and used to shoot mostly fashion. He did a fair amount of "commercial" work as well, shooting stuff for magazines and advertising imagery as well. These days, since every kid has a camera, most places he formerly worked are now paying crap wages to younger kids who are making a subsistence-type living basically negotiating their way via the so-called "gig economy". He does pick up the occasional gig where his years of expertise come into play.

 

The 3rd person I know who was trying to be a professional. photographer got hooked. into a school portrait situation and did really well for a short while- earning accolade and awards.I n the end, I'm not certain what happened- other than the school portraits being totally seasonal, maybe he just could not figure it out year-round. I think his "career" as a photographer lasted maybe 3 years or so.

 

None of these people shot film professionally, the 2 long term guys haven't shot film in ages. Neither of these guys has submitted anything of any higher quality than a JPG file in like forever.

 

So the question of "if more people shot film would it create more jobs?" I would guess is theoretically sound under certain circumstances, but more on an individual, case by case basis than it is with real-world or commercial photography as a profession.

 

Will people make a living at "fine art" photography shooting film?

Will some wedding and portrait photographers be able to offer an analog, film-only service to certain customers?

 

I would answer "yes" to both questions., but I'm not sure that "job creation" would result from a few lucky (and really driven, super hard working) people seeking out a living doing such. That said, considering the current "revolution" in film and analog photography.... who knows, right?