How has the digital revolution changed the photographic industry?

[ujjwaldey8165]

Lets analyse this by each user group

The Rank Amateurs :Ceratinly digital has helped proliferation of photogpahing snapshots. Low cost, easy access, and ease of usage has encouraged many to take photographs, who would have otherwise not bothered. Camera in the phone has also helped instant documentation of events; that usually relied on journalists. Overall effect - positive

The Photo-Entusiasts : better quality lens and camera have certainly helped more people become enthusiasts. Access to digital darkrooms ( though arguably, this can be true for scanned film images as well) have encouraged many to experiment with their creative side. This has also created a new style of image creation; that was difficult, and sometimes impossible with a film set-up. Also this has made possible for more to aspire making a living out of photographing ( not necessarily making better images, but becoming a professional photographer) - low cost and easy usage has helped this process. On the downside, this has eaten into the existing professional market; and arguably sometimes lowered the standard of professional photography. ( lower the barrier to entry, lower the standards in a unregulated market. Food for thought : will this lead to some sort of industry regulation, or self governance?).

Overall effect : positive

The event Photography :

Photographers perspective : Has made it faster, sometimes easier and arguably improved quality. Certain class of event photography has vastly improved ( at a similar price point, relative to the film days).

Clients perspective : Made it accessible and cheap. Imcreased expectation - higher quality at a lower cost. Lower barrier of entry means larger pool of photographers, means increased competition, leading to low cost. But, ownership of a camera does not imply higher skills anymore; therefore clients have to learn how to choose photographers to suit their need.

Overall effect : positive; with some changing market dynamics

Photo-journalism : The biggest impact here is the speed and quality of reportage. Both has improved. However since media has now acces to on-the-spot photographs from all the sections ( Amateurs etc); the job of journalists have been made that much difficult. Again effect is positive for the general public and news media; but possible worse for the reporters; and definitely for the non-democratic government. The only possibly issue is ease of digital manipulation; which can bring into question the authenticity of the photograph itself - more than the ones via a film negative.

Film enthusiasts : Perversely, they are possibly the biggest beneficiary of the digital revolution. Cameras which were utterly out of their reach has suddenly become available - to the point that many of them are like a kid in a candy shop, buying whatever they fancy, and living out their gadget-fantasy ( ask me!)

Photography -as-an-art : This is more difficult; unless one is willing to class any image that has somewhere been through a camera lens as a photograph. For the purist; art has suffered due to excessive digital manipulation; the moderinst will argue that digital art is merely an evolution of the fine traditions of Bresson, Adams et al. The argument over this is possibly the most emotional; not in the least because art never had a universally agreed definition.

 

[Phillip Mac]

If I may return to the origonal question
as an advertising photographer that lived through the change i feel qualified to answer such a good question, I will try to be brief.
In the good old days when a photographer was a photographer, there was always a mystery about the advertising tog, we were paid thousands of pounds a day to work on large format 10x8 and 5x4 inch.
A typical location job for a summer advertisment would be shot in March, meaning we would have to go to the southern hemisphere for the shoot , now we use a stock shot for the background!
I remember going to Colombia to shoot a shot that would now be shot in studio at a 100th of the cost. I've travelledthe world on big budgets and I realy miss it, the reason that I decided to retire early.
The other enormous change is who takes the picture the advertising agency art director will say to himself 'I can do it myself' as he is the one that accepts the photo he is always happy with the result, leading to a definite lowering of quality of good advertising photography.
Even the client gets in on the act by bringing a camera on the shoot,
How many times have I heard don't worry about that we'll sort it on the computer;
I am convinced that we will keep shooting a bit of large format for a while to come as digital is to photography what video is to film (cinema)
Also it must be remembered that an old style tog had a team of up to twenty on a shoot creating employment that now has simply disapeared.

 

[Phillip Mac]

So foodpoison I've got that of my chest pm me if you need more info. I don't want to bore the others with my ravings

 

[HoppyUK]

What do you mean by digital?

In terms of picture taking, I think the actual process hasn't changed much for the likes of TP members, just a digital sensor where the film used to be. It's just cheaper, easier, and faster. The death of film has claimed one huge company that used to be amongst the top ten in the world or something massive like that - Kodak. Dozens of other smaller brands have also gone, like Minolta, and the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Samsung have moved in.

But what these things have done for popular consumer photography, particularly with mobile phone cameras, is both new and immense. And that's before we even think about the impact of the internet.

 

[Ian D J]

I often pondered on how much the invention, and subsequently the uptake, of digital photography is having an influence on our everyday going ons.
So, looking through the eyes of a simple tomato farmer, I'll add my own two cents.

Under digital photography, the cost and time associated with buying film and development has been completely eliminated.
However, when it comes to any form of digital technology, whether it's in text form or images, I always go by the "easy come, easy go" concept.
While it is just as easy to rattle off thousands and thousands of images using a digital camera, it is just as easy to lose the lot due to medium failure. After all, every digital image is nothing more than a collection of 0s & 1s being kept "alive" by a tiny electrical charge.
And while you can view old film photos many years down the line, will you be able to do the same with digital images in, say, 50 years time?
Bearing in mind how digital technology is constantly chopping and changing, will you be able to show your 40-odd years old daughter/son that digital baby photo of that person?
In order to keep those digital images alive for years, we'd have to be constantly backing everything up every 5 years or something, and obviously the bigger your digital photography collection, the harder that task will become.

 

[AliB]

Lets analyse this by each user group

The Rank Amateurs :Ceratinly digital has helped proliferation of photogpahing snapshots. Low cost, easy access, and ease of usage has encouraged many to take photographs, who would have otherwise not bothered. Camera in the phone has also helped instant documentation of events; that usually relied on journalists. Overall effect - positive

Also this has made possible for more to aspire making a living out of photographing ( not necessarily making better images, but becoming a professional photographer) - low cost and easy usage has helped this process. On the downside, this has eaten into the existing professional market; and arguably sometimes lowered the standard of professional photography. ( lower the barrier to entry, lower the standards in a unregulated market. Food for thought : will this lead to some sort of industry regulation, or self governance?).

Overall effect : positive

Overall I agree with the majority of your post but there are a couple of little bits I'd like to add to that.

On the first point you say that the ease of use is a positive effect and I would add that there is a big negative lurking in there too. That is simply how many people who are using their mobiles and supermarket quick processing actually know what makes a good picture? Just because they can press a button and point it in roughly the right direction is enough to give them a pic but if that is now their standard of acceptability it actually makes it harder to sell to them because they think that a) there is nothing to it and b) it's cheap.

On the second point, you also state this as a positive but everything you wrote was negative (which I agree with BTW) Even though I am one who is venturing into the professional environs I am trying to do it with the standards set as high as I can so I can effectively leapfrog exactly those lower levels. Unfortunately what it tends to mean to anyone trying to go down that route is that you effectively have to either spend some time in the pool, competing on price with the lowest in the market, or you work your socks off and go in at a higher price point but that can also give a problem if you have not already got a good portfolio behind you and then you can find yourself back in the pool until you get that. In the meantime the buying public are in a very confused state because they can, effectively get a good tog cheap if they find one who is going through that stage but they then have difficulty in telling that one from the rest who will not survive much beyond 18 months.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Maybe it's worthwhile looking at the reactions to advances in technology too Sean. It's certainly an interesting area that may add some good perspectives on the topic.

From speaking with other photographers, both pro and hobbyist, from reading forums, interviews and blogs, the digital age seems a blessing to some and an insult to others.

I find that we seem to get a little sentimentally attached to the tools of our craft, or at least deeply accustomed to routine of using them and producing/creating with them. Second nature kicks in and our engines can run without us thinking of the mechanics behind them, leaving us to focus our attention on the result and not the process.

When these times change it is difficult to adjust or to adapt to new technology. The longer the period of usage or the older we are, the more difficult it seems to be.

Take factory workers that have lost their jobs to machines, although a little upsetting, the machine is now doing the monotonous job, freeing the human to to be available to do things a machine is not capable of, sing a song, paint a picture, write a book and tell everyone about it. Blessing or insult? Short term loss or long term gain? or vice versa?

Personally I find this kind of topic most interesting, there is a beauty as well as an ugliness to it IMO.

When it comes to choosing to use one medium over the other for artistic reasons, it seems that today's artist considers all mediums to achieve a desired result. There is no condemnation just an appreciation for the choices and of course the effect.

As technology advances, industrial demands and requirements follow suit rapidly.
As mentioned before, a professional sports photographer would most likely be in trouble if they opted to shoot film as today's deadlines follow moments after the event.
The industry seems to allow no time for deviation.

I love digital and have no interest or use or the time for film (yet).

I respect those that do but there seem to be an awful lot of film buffs that have despicable attitudes/bitter prejudices toward digital users and also the generation that have digital technology to learn with.
It's puerile nonsense IMO, nothing positive or good can ever come from this behaviour.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, fundamentalism has no place in the world of the arts.

No matter the choice of tool, technique or method, photography is for everyone, this much should be encouraged, supported and preserved.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

AliB

I think entry to photogrpahy has become easier ( and like everything digital, cheaper). That in no way implies that it has contributed to make better photographers - indeed, one can argue, it has made the situation worse. But easy access does not translate into improved competence; indeed 'learning' anything is always difficult and only a few will succeed ( no matter what the subject is). Democratisation of knowledge does not create more genius. Indeed, elitisim is not as bad or its often made out to be. As an example; availability of cheap books didn't create more genius; but it did give everyone an equal chance. I think digital photography has similarly given more people an eual chance to prove their competence. It has taken photography from the preserve of a select wealthy few and made it available to everyone with a passion and a dream. Whether that translates into competence is quite another matter.

It true that I have said the effect is overall positive - but that doesn't mean there are no negatives. I have outlined some in the 2nd paragraph. The key dilemma I see here lies with the democratisation; easy access creates more mediocrity; and it will take a knowledgeable user base to distinguish between the average, the good and the genius. But thats a path of evolution of any craft - it took 50 years before a Bresson happened to photography. It will take a true genius to use the digital media to its fullest extent; and create it as an artform in its own right.At present digital photogrpahy is merely trying to reproduce , or atleast imitate, the art of the film medium. And therein lies the problem, the dilemma.

The art of a film medium is different from the art of a digital medium. Just as the photographers, in the early twenteeth century, tried to imitate painting through the medium of films and failed ( that craft is now a footnote of photographic history), the attempt to imitiate the art of film photography using the digital medium is destined to fail. I think the present digital craft will evolve beyond our recognition in the next decade - and will emerge as an art form - independent of and different to - the art of film photography. And like painting and photography, both film and digital will exist simultaneously in a symbiotic relationship. I truely believe we are still awaiting the emergence of a true digital photographer - the person who would revolutionise digital photography as Bresson had revolutionised film. But then, I also believe we are still to see the emergence of an Oscar Barnack of digital medium.

 

[Steve Smith]

Gone are the days of taking your photo, giving it to boots the chemist then waiting a week for the prints to come back.

That's right. It takes just an hour from film to prints now.


steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Film enthusiasts : Perversely, they are possibly the biggest beneficiary of the digital revolution. Cameras which were utterly out of their reach has suddenly become available - to the point that many of them are like a kid in a candy shop, buying whatever they fancy, and living out their gadget-fantasy ( ask me!)

That's me too!



Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

The death of film......

It's not dead!!!!!!



Steve.

 

[Daryl]

I think you have a wide range of answers here from consumer market to pro and cons of varied fields of the pro Photography area.

Digital is great but it has increased our post work ten fold.

 

[Steve Smith]

there seem to be an awful lot of film buffs that have despicable attitudes/bitter prejudices toward digital users and also the generation that have digital technology to learn with.

That attitude exists in both film and digital users. Personally, I can't see why you have to hate one thing just because you use another. I'm sure oil painters don't have endless arguments with watercolour painters trying to change erach other to their prefered medium.

Digital is a lot better now than it was in its early days where it made everything look like it was made out of Lego. There is some fantastic work being done on both digital and film (and some fairly awful stuff on both mediums too).

Just because I have chosen to use film 100% does not mean that those who choose digital are wrong. I bought a Nikon D100 in 2003 and to be honest, I would probably still be happy with the quality of that. I just couldn't stand the amount of time I spent in front of a computer processing files. I would much prefer to spend that time in a darkroom. Obviously others may have a reverse opinion to this and that is their right.

Use what works for you and don't worry too much about what others are using.


Steve.

 

[MartynK]

It's not dead!!!!!!



Steve.

Quite true. Digital offers compelling advantages for many people, but it hasn't killed film and I don't think it's going to, for a while anyway. There are enough people who never moved to digital, went back, or shoot both; and there are enough threads on these forums, and others, showing that quite a few people come into photography through digital, get hooked, and then start experimenting with film.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Use what works for you and don't worry too much about what others are using.

Steve.

That is my point Steve I just went a little further:

When it comes to choosing to use one medium over the other for artistic reasons, it seems that today's artist considers all mediums to achieve a desired result. There is no condemnation just an appreciation for the choices and of course the effect.

No matter the choice of tool, technique or method, photography is for everyone, this much should be encouraged, supported and preserved.

 

[Phillip Mac]

Daryl
You say that digital has increased your post work, tell me how did you do your post work and I mean colour retouching before digital.
I'm not sure where we are going bearing the question was about advertising photography, street posters, full page mag, double page ad,bus shelter, etc. come on a serious question the guy want's serious answers about the ad industry.

 

[AliB]

AliB

I think entry to photogrpahy has become easier ( and like everything digital, cheaper). That in no way implies that it has contributed to make better photographers - indeed, one can argue, it has made the situation worse. But easy access does not translate into improved competence; indeed 'learning' anything is always difficult and only a few will succeed ( no matter what the subject is). Democratisation of knowledge does not create more genius. Indeed, elitisim is not as bad or its often made out to be. As an example; availability of cheap books didn't create more genius; but it did give everyone an equal chance. I think digital photography has similarly given more people an eual chance to prove their competence. It has taken photography from the preserve of a select wealthy few and made it available to everyone with a passion and a dream. Whether that translates into competence is quite another matter.

Democratisation of knowledge does not create more genius.

You are quite right.


It has taken photography from the preserve of a select wealthy few and made it available to everyone with a passion and a dream. Whether that translates into competence is quite another matter.

Now that is another interesting point you raise. I was talking to my partner about just that when we discussed this very topic. Going back 30 -40 years, you would have to have a very tidy income (or rather wealthy parents willing to finance you) while you learned your craft. It could take years to become fully proficient both shooting film and in the darkroom and film, paper and chemicals were not cheap. It's certainly a lot easier to access with digital.

The other thing I find funny with digital is camera specs. Just witness the recent threads on the Nikon D3X and Canon 1DIV. People spending huge amounts of money moving from one brand to another, criticising the lastest technological wonders as insufficient for their needs and yet I do wonder if they could tell the difference between two pics taken side by side with the latest offerings?

I also wonder how they would get on if a Mamiya MF was shoved in their hands and they did not have all the latest electronics to do all the work for them.

 

[fracster]

The other thing I find funny with digital is camera specs. Just witness the recent threads on the Nikon D3X and Canon 1DIV. People spending huge amounts of money moving from one brand to another, criticising the lastest technological wonders as insufficient for their needs and yet I do wonder if they could tell the difference between two pics taken side by side with the latest offerings?

100% agree with you on that Alison.

You can have the best gear in the world and still take rubbish photographs, some can have mid or lower level stuff and take fabulous images. The photos on this forum prove as much.

Digital has opened photography up to a lot of people that simply could not afford film or afford the learning costs involved.

 

[Steve Smith]

You say that digital has increased your post work, tell me how did you do your post work and I mean colour retouching before digital.

This thread has veered away from its original intentions (partly due to me!).

To go back to the original subject, When film was the only option, it would be shot, sent to the lab for processing then the transparacies (if for magazine use) would be used to make the printing plates with a direct colour seperation process. The photographer would not have any input on this as his work was done at that stage.

As colour film processing is a constant (in theory) the photographer would know by experience what results he would achieve with various films, lighting, etc. Effectively what is known as post processing now would have been done in camera (call it pre-processing).

The same was true with wedding photography. The photographer takes the pictures, sends films to lab. After a while some proofs come back. These are put in an album and sent out to the customer. Reprints are ordered and this is also handled by the lab - no need to spend hours on the computer processing files. This is how my father did it for forty years.

The whole process of developing film and producing prints was (and still is) a mature process where the results can be predicted. Digital is not there yet but I think it will be one day. When that happens, you should be able to apply the same processing to every image you take and get predictably good results which is how it works for film


Steve.

 

[Daryl]

Sorry fellas must have missed that point. Thought it was a general question about how digital has affected the Industry as a whole?

As some on here are talking about 'Joe public' being able to buy a digital camera and go do it.

Did not realise that it was just about Ad/agency area. I've not been in that arena for over 15 years and it was all medium and large format back then. all dev and scan the Digital wizards did their stuff.

Apolagies again. Now where did i leave my glasses?

 

[candlestick]

On a personal level, the digital revolution has allowed me to learn and experiment with taking different types of photo at very little cost (after the initial outlay for the camera and memory cards obviously). I'm not sure that I would have taken up photography if that wasn't the case, and also, the idea of dark rooms etc put the fear of life into me. Computers, however, do not scare me (apart from that one out of 2001 - A Space Oddysey)!

Now I understand the basics of photography, I am experimenting with film, so I guess having embraced the digital revolution in the past, I'm now heading toward an analogue future!?

 

[AliB]

The whole process of developing film and producing prints was (and still is) a mature process where the results can be predicted. Digital is not there yet but I think it will be one day. When that happens, you should be able to apply the same processing to every image you take and get predictably good results which is how it works for film


Steve.

Hmmm that's interesting Steve because that is exactly what I do when I do my B&W's from a wedding and yes it's all digital.

Select the ones I want to make B&W, choose the action I want to apply, batch process..............applies exactly the same processing to each image. Because I know the actions I will be using I can pretty much shoot with them in mind. I know that if I underexpose too much it won't be pretty so I try to keep exposures fairly constant. Other than that there is very little difference in the actual process of shooting film. The only BIG difference is the disposable part of digital. With film being limited to 12 shots/roll would make me a lot more selective and obviously results in a lot less spontaneous photography and a lot more formal/posed shots.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

:


Now that is another interesting point you raise. I was talking to my partner about just that when we discussed this very topic. Going back 30 -40 years, you would have to have a very tidy income (or rather wealthy parents willing to finance you) while you learned your craft. It could take years to become fully proficient both shooting film and in the darkroom and film, paper and chemicals were not cheap. It's certainly a lot easier to access with digital.

The other thing I find funny with digital is camera specs. Just witness the recent threads on the Nikon D3X and Canon 1DIV. People spending huge amounts of money moving from one brand to another, criticising the lastest technological wonders as insufficient for their needs and yet I do wonder if they could tell the difference between two pics taken side by side with the latest offerings?

Offcourse; and the best example of that was Bresson himself. Without his family money; he would never have had the chance to first learn to paint; and then learn photography ( with the best equipments of the day, if I may add). Does not detract from his genius; but certainly wealth helped to bring that genius to the fore.

On the other issue of technology; the problem is digital is not a mature technology; and like everything electronic; improves the quality twice over every 18 months . If we think back to the early days of film; improvements were going on all the time - camera body; lens, lens coating, lens making technology, film type etc. And I am guessing all photographers ( and most of them were rich, so money was no object) were adopting these. Not all of those were successful experiments - but they contributed to the maturing. Indeed, Eastman did more to democratise film than any other manufacturer - and that included Zeiss and Leica, who between them had created most of the innovations of the day.

I have a simple test for maturing modern consumer technology - when manufactures start to add capabilities which has no bearing with the original intention of the equipment, the technology must have matured ( cell phones with camera and music player etc). So the day manufacturers will bring out a digicam which can cook your dinner - the technology must have matured

 

[Steve Smith]

.......applies exactly the same processing to each image. Because I know the actions I will be using I can pretty much shoot with them in mind.

That's exactly what I was talking about. It seems that you have done your research and experimentation and know exactly what to expect and work with it which is the way it should be. I think too many people don't worry about it at the shooting stage and assume they can sort it all out later - making much more work for themselves.

Hmmm that's interesting Steve because that is exactly what I do when I do my B&W's from a wedding and yes it's all digital.....

What do you do with colour?



Steve.

 

[HoppyUK]

Democratisation of knowledge does not create more genius.

You are quite right.

I don't think that is true at all. And I think you can prove it statistically - the larger the base of the pyramid, the higher the peak.

Ultimate standards today are higher, in direct proportion to the increase in dross at the other end.

Many photographers today who are rated are merely extremely good, would be hailed as genius in the past. It is technology, and the massive increase in popularity, democratisation if you like, that has driven that.

This thread has veered away from its original intentions (partly due to me!).

To go back to the original subject, When film was the only option, it would be shot, sent to the lab for processing then the transparacies (if for magazine use) would be used to make the printing plates with a direct colour seperation process. The photographer would not have any input on this as his work was done at that stage.

As colour film processing is a constant (in theory) the photographer would know by experience what results he would achieve with various films, lighting, etc. Effectively what is known as post processing now would have been done in camera (call it pre-processing).

The same was true with wedding photography. The photographer takes the pictures, sends films to lab. After a while some proofs come back. These are put in an album and sent out to the customer. Reprints are ordered and this is also handled by the lab - no need to spend hours on the computer processing files. This is how my father did it for forty years.

The whole process of developing film and producing prints was (and still is) a mature process where the results can be predicted. Digital is not there yet but I think it will be one day. When that happens, you should be able to apply the same processing to every image you take and get predictably good results which is how it works for film

Steve.

You appear to be describing the production of a JPEG direct from the camera, which is what the vast majority do, what I do in the main, and the process that Ali has described for B&W.

Digital has been this way from the very beginning. Just like shooting slides, or accepting what you get straight back from the D&P lab :shrug:

And no, I accept that film is not dead. Just like the steam locomotive and the horse drawn cart is alive and kicking

 

[desantnik]

My view is that digital photography hasn't changed much in photography if you are just talking about the idea of capturing an image as a file instead of a negative.

What has really changed things is the internet and the use of it to transmit (point to point) and display (en masse publically) photos.

People in this thread have talked about the transmission aspect (sending photos from shoots to editors etc rapidly) but the bit which has "destroyed" pro photography is the mass publication bit.

Probably the same number of people take photos today as ever did, its just that now we can all see what a lot of these people are creating.

30 years ago how would you have seen anyone's work unless they had it published in a book or a magazine or a gallery? How do you know that my (or anyone else's) photo album doesn't contain pictures just as good as any published by recognised big name talent? You don't do you.. And in fact getting your photo seen by the masses and building a reputation was all about having the contacts to get it out there... now you can create a website, upload to Getty (or other libraries) or even post on TP to get your work seen by others.

So no, digital capture of images is not the revolutionary part, its the use of those images on the internet thats changed things beyond recognition.

 

[Steve Smith]

You appear to be describing the production of a JPEG direct from the camera, which is what the vast majority do

I was thinking more of applying exactly the same process to the RAW (or un-modified JPG) file in Photoshop (or similar) but a standard in-camera process would achieve the same thing.

I think the point I was making was that with colour negative film sent to a lab, the process between pressing the shutter and receiving prints is totally out of the photographers control. But as it is a constant, the photographer knows what to do in camera and/or with film choice to get the desired results. So a 'standard' post process could achieve the same thing.

The reality is that digital post processing can be done an infinite number of ways and no two people will do it the same way.


Steve.

 

[AliB]

Interestingly Jeff Ascough has written about just this subject in his blog, very good reading

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/jeff_ascough_blog/2009/08/20-years-and-counting.html

and to answer Steve, the colour images are actually a little tricker

If they are outdoor shots then the colour balance should be fine, straight sharpen should do it. If they are indoor shots the colour balance may need some attention and I will choose the ones I want to work with and just make sure they are properly balanced. Mixing halogen, tungsten and daylight always has been and always will be a pest!

 

[nass]

Desantnik - good point that it's not just about the digital camera. I might add that it's not just the digital camera that has pushed forward photography, it's also technology like auto-focus lenses (which has had an impact on sports & nature photography)

 

[HoppyUK]

My view is that digital photography hasn't changed much in photography if you are just talking about the idea of capturing an image as a file instead of a negative.

What has really changed things is the internet and the use of it to transmit (point to point) and display (en masse publically) photos.

I think that's a key point. What I was trying to say earlier (but I didn't put it so well).

 

[cap'n crunch]

Also as I've seen a quote on here from KevM iirc, David Bailey said, "I hate socialism because it's like digital photography. It reduces everyone to the same level."

After reading this whole thread (some very good points for and against digital) it was the quote above and the point of view from others that Digital has weakened the "professional" photographer what caught my eye.

And I would have to disagree with the above quote. At the moment it may seem that way as digital photography is what i would describe as still in it's infancy. So alot of people when something new appears will try their hand and see if they can mix it with the best because it is new it makes people start from a similar starting point. In good time the wheat will be sorted from the chaff. Survival of the fittest etc.

And with technology still bounding on at a tremendous rate (moores law) we should see great things possible from photography.

So overall i think photography has definatly changed for the better with the advent of ditigal as the possibilities are now somewhat endless. And that the industry is still very new, and we will return to the days of film where the best (pro's) will be paid handsomly and rubbish (dodgy wedding photographers) will die out and the class barriers re-defined.

 

[desantnik]

and we will return to the days of film where the best (pro's) will be paid handsomly and rubbish (dodgy wedding photographers) will die out and the class barriers re-defined.

The class system re-established? You know nothing of the dialectic of history

No, I don't see things going backwards, not ever.

The internet has killed all sorts of proffessions and short of the internet getting | nul, none of those killed will return and more will go still in the next couple of years.

Most of the impact has been to turn the world into a massive global marketplace and making supply sky rocket which drives the price of things down. In many cases it actually drives the price to next to zero percent margin, eliminating vast tracts of traditional business models.

Once the market has had things for nothing, they expect to get it for nothing all the time.

In case none of you have noticed a recurring theme on here, people often post that despite whatever harsh C&C they have had from fellow TP'ers that "the client was delighted". Which probably says exactly all you need to know about internet age customer expectations vs price....

 

[Tyke Tiler]

The internet has killed all sorts of proffessions and short of the internet getting | nul, none of those killed will return and more will go still in the next couple of years.

Most of the impact has been to turn the world into a massive global marketplace and making supply sky rocket which drives the price of things down. In many cases it actually drives the price to next to zero percent margin, eliminating vast tracts of traditional business models.

Once the market has had things for nothing, they expect to get it for nothing all the time.

In case none of you have noticed a recurring theme on here, people often post that despite whatever harsh C&C they have had from fellow TP'ers that "the client was delighted". Which probably says exactly all you need to know about internet age customer expectations vs price....

I worked in as a senior sales assistant in retail for four years selling pro audio recording equipment/outboard, piano's, keyboards, guitars, amps and banjo's .
We were one of the largest independent traders in the city.

It was a little frustrating to have a customer take up your time with demonstrations and then buy the same product cheaper on the net, especially when our wages were commission based.

At the same time, why wouldn't they/we want to pay less?
The vast majority of us are under paid, over worked and under valued. Of course if we can get the same item, with the same warranty and the same after sales service, we will buy it cheaper.

Let's face it, luxury items, hobby items and also the tools we use for trade are over priced, an item that costs £1000 is seldom truly worth that kind of money and hardly ever justifies it's price tag.

Cyclical consumption is a manufacturers choice, they make things that are designed to a life span for the benefit of profit.
The average dslr has a life expectancy of 18 months to 2 years with 'average' use, a cell phone - even shorter.
Our current technology could make a cell phone that could last 50 years with the greatest of ease.

Why shouldn't folk buy this stuff cheaper?

Of course, the internet hasn't had an effect on all trades/crafts, older/larger musical instrument companies like Gibson guitars and the company that distributes Gibson products in the UK (Rosetti) boarded the internet train long before it's rivals and net prices did not effect them in the same way at all.
They clearly thought about the consequences of who they were selling to and what prices they were selling at.
No matter the internet price the retailers had little room to move far away from RRP's.

Internet market places and stores have forced the high street retailer to pull their socks up.

The internet has not killed any professions IMO, it only 'destroy's' those who do not adapt and compensate for it's opportunities.

 

[Steve Smith]

I worked in as a senior sales assistant in retail for four years selling pro audio recording equipment/outboard, piano's, keyboards, guitars, amps and banjo's

Musical instruments and banjos!


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

No matter the internet price the retailers had little room to move far away from RRP's.

I think some of them do have some 'room to move'. When I bought my Gretsch a couple of years ago, I could have bought it in a large London shop (I won't mention any names but it's on Charing Cross Road). They wanted 1p less than £2000 for it.

Instead I bought it from a smaller shop in Farnham (I'm sure you know which one) for £1599.

If the small shop can sell it for £400 less than the large shop then something is wrong somewhere.


Steve.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Musical instruments and banjos!

Steve.

Indeed Steve! Totally Off topic but... I play 5 string banjo, have a tattoo of one covering the entire inner left fore arm
I love em! Earl Scruggs is a hero of mine.
It's been a while since I played as my own one is a real old cheapie, it definitely would not have survived the flight when I migrated from Brum to Helsinki.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I think some of them do have some 'room to move'. When I bought my Gretsch a couple of years ago, I could have bought it in a large London shop (I won't mention any names but it's on Charing Cross Road). They wanted 1p less than £2000 for it.

Instead I bought it from a smaller shop in Farnham (I'm sure you know which one) for £1599.

If the small shop can sell it for £400 less than the large shop then something is wrong somewhere.


Steve.

I love Gretsch, best lookin and best sounding six strings to grace the earth IMO. I have one of the cheap electromatic versions released about five years ago.

Gretsch is distributed to the UK under Fender Blue line if I remember correctly, there is much more headroom with Fender RRP's in comparison to Gibbo, they are impenetrable on price and Rosetti are very strict and also very loyal to them.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Let's face it, luxury items, hobby items and also the tools we use for trade are over priced, an item that costs £1000 is seldom truly worth that kind of money and hardly ever justifies it's price tag.

That's a whole different can of small wriggly things there, Tomas

What do you mean by "hardly ever justifies it's price tag"? Do you mean in quality, or in relation to the cost of other items? You have to remember that there are many more factors in pricing than just a retailer's markup......

 

[Tyke Tiler]

That's a whole different can of small wriggly things there, Tomas

What do you mean by "hardly ever justifies it's price tag"? Do you mean in quality, or in relation to the cost of other items? You have to remember that there are many more factors in pricing than just a retailer's markup......

Sure mate, as I mentioned, I worked in retail for a decent amount of time, I nearly pursued the avenue of becoming a distribution rep too. It was my job to understand the trade prices, the distribution cuts the margins and most importantly, the 'room to move' should we have to negotiate a tight deal.

What I mean is that price tags do not justify the quality, life expectancy that you get from them. Admittedly it's a little different with tools as they assist in generating an income but still I think even tools teeter on the edge of bloated price tags.

Take brands like Elinchrom and Profoto for example, yes the quality is superb but come on, 6500 euro's for a octabox? up to 8000 euros for a battery that lasts for a few hundred pops at full power and takes several hours to charge?

Cars, housing and luxury items more so and anyone has good enough reason to want these things cheaper, given the opportunity, they deservedly will.

I think that in this day and age, it's more than fair enough.

 

[Steve Smith]

Indeed Steve! Totally Off topic but... I play 5 string banjo, have a tattoo of one covering the entire inner left fore arm
I love em! Earl Scruggs is a hero of mine.

I can't quite manage five strings so mine has the fifth string removed. It only really gets used for hammering out jazz and skiffle at twice the speed it was supposed to be played.

It's a percussion instrument really. If you forget the chords you can just mute the strings and bang out a banjoish thud sound... perfect!

I expect you have heard this one: Q: What's the difference between a trampoline and a banjo? A: You don't need to take your shoes off to jump on a banjo.

I love Gretsch, best lookin and best sounding six strings to grace the earth IMO. I have one of the cheap electromatic versions released about five years ago.

I have wanted a Gretsch for many years. I joined a rockabilly band three years ago and I was originally going to buy one of the Electromatics but in the end I decided to buy the 6120 because I thought that if I didn't buy one when I had the perfect reason to (being in the band) then I would never buy one. I couldn't really afford it but that doesn't usually stop me!

Nothing wrong with the Electromatics though. They look and sound good. Some nice colour options not available on the standard range too.

Gretsch is distributed to the UK under Fender Blue line if I remember correctly.

They are manufactured by Fender too now.



Anyway - Back to the original subject of this thread... whatever that was........


Steve.