How has the digital revolution changed the photographic industry?

foodpoison

foodpoison

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,253
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
Serious question, this is for my HND in 'Advertising and Media Communications' for my Photography unit.

Now obviously there are things such as Flickr which have allowed easy access to images, Gettyimages so it's easier to buy stock images, Alamy makes it easier to sell your stock images, and then the decreased costs in processing and printing, but I'd like to hear your views.

Views from professionals, amateurs, how it's affected work, etc etc.

Please keep it civilised, as I've said, it's a serious question, not just one to spark an argument.

Much appreciated :)

Mods, if you intervene, please would I be able to access a copy of the original 'transcript' as certain information may be necessary. If this is not possible, no worries, but it would be extremely helpful.
 
This is sooo gonna end in a fight, but good question though. :thumbs:

I too, would be interested to hear what the pros say, especially those that have experienced both mediums :popcorn:
 
it has perhaps made photography accessible to all instead of a select few?
 
The biggest change has to be for photojournalism. Newspapers were the the first to embrace digital tech - in the old days they had their own processing facilities for film. Now a paparazzo can shoot thousands of images, put them on his laptop and upload them to his paper, magazine publisher etc. in minutes. Same with sports photographers etc.

Then factor in the web as a news delivery medium.. you could go on to a news website and be looking at an image that's hours or even minutes old.

Just that subject alone should keep you going for a bit :D

A.
 
This could provide hours of entertainment, but if taken seriously as the OP suggests then it could make for some very interesting reading.

As someone who has just started to advertise my services I am very interested to see the comments from the pros on here.

:popcorn:
 
To me it has helped to improve my photography, in the 'film days' I would take photos and have to wait for the films to come back (I wasnt into the DIY)
trying to remember what I had done to get the image was a bit hit and miss, I didnt always have a notebook with me.

With digital the learning curve has been quicker, a DOF experiment now takes 5 min to see the result.
Its also helped with paid work too, i can set up, Grey card, grab a passing waiter to check for shadows and know that I am set up and good to go for 95% of the work I will do that night.
If needs be I can have digital proofs at the organiser the next morning before the hangovers wear off!

this is just my 5p, but digital has helped me.
 
It has affected lots of people.

Now that the development and film costs have disappeared people are able to experiment and get from rank amateur to "passable" reasonably quickly. This has meant that there are a load of people offering to do work which WOULD have been professional photographer's work a few years ago.

I am an amateur! I have taken some really nice portraits but I am an amateur. I scurry home with my card, stick it into the computer and see how many of the pictures have come out well. This would be unacceptable to a pro who needs virtually (if not all) of the pictures to come out well. I have a friend who is a very good wedding tog and his stuff is fantastic! I have been asked to do weddings by other friends and relatives because people have seen selected pictures of mine and they are surprised when I say "no I am not good enough". The digital age has brought in a whole collection of people who assume they can take that big jump. (some can, most can't)

It has also taken work from product and specialist togs. If Mrs_C was well enough to run a full time jewellery business and we needed advertising pictures I would have had to get a pro tog out. As it is now I can spend a whole day or two and get the pictures because I can experiment and see the results straight away until we are happy with them.
 
I've no experience of the pro days of film but I have been around a while so here is my 2p worth.

I think the biggest impact on the industry has been that customers expect much more than in the past.

In the wedding side back in the film days the typical tog took 10x 12 exposure films typically just at the ceremony and a few shots at the reception. It is now feasible to shoot the entire day and now most togs shoot in to the 1000s of images and clients expect this.

In the commercial environment clients want their images faster and edited ready for use, where in the past the tog shot and handed the images over for the client to prepare for use.

In the sports arena images are typically uploaded within minutes of them being taken (some instantly), rather than films being sent to the office for processing.

Digital photography has also enabled another branch of photography to be born and flourish - Event Photography (not exactly easy to achieve with film - possible but much harder)

Plus overall the I think that the skill level for entry to industry is much lower, its easier to get stunning images with digital. This is because in the past most togs out sourced the actual image production to a third party (the lab) where as now the tog can correct their own minor mistakes on the computer.
 
He's a bit of a ponce though..
Why is it "reduced" rather than "elevated"
 
IanC said:
it has perhaps made photography accessible to all instead of a select few?
Click to expand...


:thumbs:

Edit ...Oh ...bit slow.

Once there where Monks who had the words.
Then printing presses where invented and books became available to all.

Now its photography’s turn, a second go if you like after the boom of the box Brownie and onto the cheap instamatic...now digital takes photography to the next level ...everybody...equally. etc

:thumbs:
 
For me it has been so important on two fronts. One the 'horses for courses' in that there is now a camera to suit all needs and budgets too. And secondly, and one more for the serious ameteurs or pros, is the ability to experiment and instantly see the results. The odd night shoot would have been less successful if I couldn't have made changes on the spot.
 
There have been lots of changes - not all good. The one I'd mention first is deadlines - they have got a lot shorter. In film days you could deliver prints in a couple of days - now images are needed in a couple of hours - and that's on a slow job! The other main change is that with so many people now in a position to supply good quality images, the price paid for them has fallen drastically.
 
HI FP

I started life as a press photographer shooting film. Initially I loved printing my black and white prints for a local newspaper. When I moved to nationals it was always hard working out the best way to get the images to London. We had a wire machine which was a massive drum and would take 30 minutes to wire an image to the other end.

The biggest problem was having got a picture from say a stake out do you wait for something better or head off to get he pics sent off. It must be great to just plug the camera in and send from wherever you can get a mobile phone signal.

I then left the press to shoot commercial on 5inch x 4inch. It was always lost time waiting for the trannies to be processed. To now use live view must be fantastic. In the 90s recession I jumped ship to social photography where you could get the customer to pay before you shot rather than in the commercial world where for blue chip companies like Rank you would sometimes wait nine months for an invoice to be processed.

I think for the social photographer digital is a plus but also a minus. If you love the idea of printing in house, which I have always done its a lot of extra work. But the extra creativite dimension it provides is fantastic.

Overall digital photography has really helped the world of photography. It has brought the media to a front and I think it will not be long before a photograph will be more valuable than a piece of painted artwork

stew
 
It has had a major negative effect....
Publishers are reducing what they are prepared to pay for photographs, or for repeat reproductions. Most have closed their internal departments.

The abundance of free amateur news shots of negligible but just sufficient quality have flooded the market.

This will eliminate all but specialist highly technically equipped and trained professionals from the market place.

Probably 50% of the bread and butter work of wedding photographers has been moved into the amateur and semi amateur fold.

Industrial photography is a fraction of what it was in the 60' to 90's.

Probably the biggest growth for talented Photographers has been the move into the world of Television and Cine photography.
 
Sean, ideally you want to find some bona fide published research on the subject that you can reference, rather than then anecdotal evidence that you'll gather from posting the question on a site such as TP. Your college/uni should have access to market reports from the likes of Mintel and Keynote, plus back copies of Marketing Week, which whilst they probably won't have articles/reports that exactly match your criteria will no doubt have some that contain useful nuggets of data.

It's always better to be able to reference a well-respected source in your essay -anecdotal evidence, or any other source that can't be qualified won't score you any brownie points.
 
He he. Do your own homework. ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Sean, ideally you want to find some bona fide published research on the subject that you can reference, rather than then anecdotal evidence that you'll gather from posting the question on a site such as TP. Your college/uni should have access to market reports from the likes of Mintel and Keynote, plus back copies of Marketing Week, which whilst they probably won't have articles/reports that exactly match your criteria will no doubt have some that contain useful nuggets of data.

It's always better to be able to reference a well-respected source in your essay -anecdotal evidence, or any other source that can't be qualified won't score you any brownie points.
Click to expand...

I'm doing a substantial amount of that as well, but I'm hoping I can get a few professionals to comment on it too as sections of the essay. Thanks for the heads up though.
 
The changes are dramatic, substantive, and in my opinion, all for the better. The learning curve has been shrunk dramatically for those trying to learn this craft. Read a full post of my thoughts here.

Andrew Boyd
TheDiscerningPhotographer
 
I think David Bailey is wrong, It just means you see your **** pictures quicker.

I've seen commercial studios, particularly those that do a lot of for catalogue companies embrace digital photography. It's saved them a lot of money in Polaroid material , film and processing costs. It also made them more productive.

Other photographers have also seen the advantage of digital. OK the costs of the equipment are higher, but the running costs are lower.

It has it's downsides, manufacturers of conventional film and those companies that used to process the film have seen revenues drop, and many are no longer around. This has an impact on the employees who no longer have jobs.

But we've seen this before with technologies such as the Spinning Jenny, that put thousands of weavers out of work.

OK point and shoot cameras are used by a lot of people to produce photographs they need for business use, but I think this is just a continuation of a trend that started to gather momentum back in the 90's. It's just a lot easier to get that image into print than it was.

We've also seen the rise in Royalty Free photographs, which if memory serves started back in the early 2000 with Corel, and now has expanded. Plus the effect of hosting sites such as Flickr, has expanded the reach of photography.

Nothing stands still
 
IanC said:
it has perhaps made photography accessible to all instead of a select few?
Click to expand...

Forbiddenbiker said:
:thumbs:

Edit ...Oh ...bit slow.

Once there where Monks who had the words.
Then printing presses where invented and books became available to all.

Now its photography’s turn, a second go if you like after the boom of the box Brownie and onto the cheap instamatic...now digital takes photography to the next level ...everybody...equally. etc

:thumbs:
Click to expand...


Nah, photography is no more or less available today than it was 50 years ago.
Anybody who could actually be arsed to learn, could have....and did.
I don't understand this secret black magic make your own photos but don't tell anybody how you did it, idea of why photography didn't explode to the masses till digital came around.
Digital is just more convenient, it has allowed peeps who previously couldn't be arsed, to now contribute......
 
joxby said:
Nah, photography is no more or less available today than it was 50 years ago.
Anybody who could actually be arsed to learn, could have....and did.
I don't understand this secret black magic make your own photos but don't tell anybody how you did it, idea of why photography didn't explode to the masses till digital came around.
Digital is just more convenient, it has allowed peeps who previously couldn't be arsed, to now contribute......
Click to expand...

Its got nothing to do with secret black magic I agree, lol.... the other side of that particular aspect that I'm sure you knew I was referring to... :p is simply how things change when the become accessible to all.

Its cheep to learn, its cheep to enjoy the fruits. ...its never been so accessible, both to view, to share, and even to print.

You really sound a bit peeved about it though... ;)
 
artona said:
It has brought the media to a front and I think it will not be long before a photograph will be more valuable than a piece of painted artwork
Click to expand...

I can't see that happening myself. In fact, I think the reverse is true.


Steve.
 
foodpoison said:
David Bailey said, "I hate socialism because it's like digital photography. It reduces everyone to the same level."
Click to expand...

I like digital because it has allowed me to buy some great film cameras which I could only have dreamed about a few years ago.


Steve.
 
foodpoison said:
Serious question, this is for my HND in 'Advertising and Media Communications' for my Photography unit.

Now obviously there are things such as Flickr which have allowed easy access to images, Gettyimages so it's easier to buy stock images, Alamy makes it easier to sell your stock images, and then the decreased costs in processing and printing, but I'd like to hear your views.

Views from professionals, amateurs, how it's affected work, etc etc.

Please keep it civilised, as I've said, it's a serious question, not just one to spark an argument.

Much appreciated :)

Mods, if you intervene, please would I be able to access a copy of the original 'transcript' as certain information may be necessary. If this is not possible, no worries, but it would be extremely helpful.
Click to expand...

from the amateur low level photography enthusiast...
ability to do your own adjustments and relatively cheaper processing
no real wait for results and more efficient as duds can be deleted straight off

cameras are a bit dearer in some respects but far outweigh the older wind up jobs..imho
an area however where cost has come down i think for equipment is the point and shoot brigade...for £60-80 you can get a digital which with own processing can produce good prints
 
I think digital, and sophisticated automation, have made an enormous difference to the "snapshot" shooter. It's not a good description, and it's not meant to sound patronising, but I can't think of a more appropriate one right now.

Most affordable, entry level, digital P & S cameras, with their automatic and mode settings blow away their film equivalents (Brownies, Instamatics, Disk Cameras etc) for people who aren't interested in photography and just want family, holiday and social "snaps". Some cell phones can produce pretty good images too. Throw in immediate results, that you can review on the camera, virtually unlimited capacity, the ability to share via email, on the web and by MMS, no delays/extra costs for D & P and you have a revolution. Instant, low cost, flexible photography in the pocket/bag for everyone.

I'll be interested to see where this thread goes.
 
MartynK said:
Most affordable, entry level, digital P & S cameras, with their automatic and mode settings blow away their film equivalents
Click to expand...

You are correct.... though possibly not for the reasons you are thinking of.

Most of the terrible results from film compacts are not achieved by poor quality of the camera but because of the film quality. Most snapshot shooters would use 'Happy Snaps' three for £5 films from high street processors.

Put a high quality film into a good 35mm compact and it will then blow away the digital compacts.

MartynK said:
I'll be interested to see where this thread goes.
Click to expand...

Indeed!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
You are correct.... though possibly not for the reasons you are thinking of.

Most of the terrible results from film compacts are not achieved by poor quality of the camera but because of the film quality. Most snapshot shooters would use 'Happy Snaps' three for £5 films from high street processors.

Put a high quality film into a good 35mm compact and it will then blow away the digital compacts.



Indeed!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe. Quality film in a good 35mm compact gives/gave excellent results (I had a few), but I was thinking of the "family" cameras, the 127s and the 110/126 Instamatics. Most of them had a single shutter speed, one or two apertures (little icons for sun and cloud), a "focus free" lens, no ASA adjustments and used flash bulbs or cubes. I was a kid/teenager then, and very few people I knew used 35mm or electronic flash at all. Those were for enthusiasts and serious photography. £5 for three films? I think I paid less then £1 for three, in "old" money (usually FP4 or Tri X).
 
I've been digital for 9 years now, and would not dream of using film. Except 10x8 neg for the big groups we sometimes get.

Pros= No film processing= no waiting = no extra chemicals so enviro friendly.

Cons= It has made a hell of alot more work in post work. And clients expect and want more because they think you can do anything digital.

Early days weddings were wow! factor. Now can you do this? Can you do that?

Yes we can do that but it will cost you!!!!! 'Oh no, we don't want to pay for it!!!'

clients expect alot lot more! So yes its made access to images quicker and easier but the post work it has trebled the expectations of Clients. All of which is more time consuming.
 
MartynK said:
but I was thinking of the "family" cameras, the 127s and the 110/126 Instamatics.
Click to expand...

For worst quality and worst idea ever, look no further than the Kodak disc camera.

MartynK said:
I think I paid less then £1 for three, in "old" money (usually FP4 or Tri X).
Click to expand...

But that's good quality film, not terrible consumer quality stuff. Three rolls for £1? When was that?


Steve.
 
I'd never seen a disk camera until recently. My wife's aunt found one in a box of stuff left over from a move about 20 years ago, and asked me if I could get the disk out. Bit of a battle, because it was stuck, but I managed. She baulked at the processing cost though, and I didn't feel like trying it.

[/QUOTE]But that's good quality film, not terrible consumer quality stuff. Three rolls for £1? When was that?

Steve.[/QUOTE]

Probably around 1967 - 1968? Tri X had been around for a while, but I think FP4 was fairly new. I did reload cassettes, but that price was for preloaded. I used to develop FP4 in Microphen or Acutol, and Tri X in D76, but it was a long time ago. Memories of a freezing "darkroom", that was actually a big hall cupboard with makeshift blackout. It worked for developing though, and a friend's father had an enlarger.
 
I would say the digital revolution in photography has been a huge boom in the number of people buying and using cameras. It's the instant gratification of digital that many people love, we more serious togs (you qualify by being a member here) call it chimpping, but the general public love to snap and show.

As said above this has also created a rise in the number of lab printing outlets, with most of the supper markets now doing in-store printing. Gone are the days of taking your photo, giving it to boots the chemist then waiting a week for the prints to come back.

It's snap and show and pop in to Asda on your way home for your photo in one hour.
 
foodpoison said:
Yes. If you'd have read the whole thread before pouncing you'd have seen that this is a minute amount of research.

Asking members of the public and in the industry is a perfectly valid way of researching, too.
Click to expand...

It is, but you need some way of quantifying your findings, what you'll get from this is, at best, the basis for a questionnaire....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
It is, but you need some way of quantifying your findings, what you'll get from this is, at best, the basis for a questionnaire....
Click to expand...

This is literally just the start. I will take notes from here and then go and do reading not entirely based on those notes.
It is likely that nothing from this thread will enter into the essay.

This, as I've said, is only a minute amount of the research. 1/10th at most!

Please guys, I'm not an idiot, don't assume I am :gag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top