How has the digital revolution changed the photographic industry?

[Tyke Tiler]

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!

Blasphemy!!! All my mates at the shop used to do that, I was the only one who learned rolls and used the metal thumbpicks.
I do miss it, the things are just so expensive though, for the good stuff anyway.

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.

Steve.

Indeed I have, many times, everyone hated my banjo, I had to go to learn from my books in the shed at the bottom of our garden.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Sure mate, I worked in retail for a decent amount of time, I nearly pursued the avenue of becoming a distribution rep too.

Quality, life expectancy, the works really.

Cars, housing, luxury items and tools of the trade are all IMO are very bloated and anyone has good enough reason to want these things cheaper, given the opportunity, they will.

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

Everyone want things "cheaper", that's just human nature, but that doesn't mean than prices are "bloated" or that the manufacturer/retailer is making a huge profit on high-end or "luxury" items.

If you take something like your D3 for example, the R&D costs on something like that will be pretty high and as they are handbuilt so will those for assembly. I wouldn't imagine that Nikon shift huge numbers of cameras at that end of the market, so for a retailer to stock them there needs to be a worthwhile profit margin. In days gone £1000+ would have been the norm in most market sectors at that sort of of price point, nowadays I'd doubt they'll be making £500 on them.

Tiny profits are fine on items that sell quickly - fmcgs (fast moving consumer goods) as they're known, but high-end cameras and the like simply don't fall into that classification.

With regard to life expectancy, most modern products are fair superior to those of only 25 years ago - back then it was still common to see a 3 year old car covered in rust, nowadays you'll hardly see rust on anything under 10-years old, unless it's a Mercedes (opens second can of worms :nono and as you say mobile phones etc are engineered to last for years and years, again forcing the manufacturers to seek other ways, such as built in obsolescence, of attracting custom.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Everyone want things "cheaper", that's just human nature, but that doesn't mean than prices are "bloated" or that the manufacturer/retailer is making a huge profit on high-end or "luxury" items.

It is indeed human nature to want things cheaper and IMO we have more than a good enough reason to.

If you take something like your D3 for example, the R&D costs on something like that will be pretty high and as they are handbuilt so will those for assembly. I wouldn't imagine that Nikon shift huge numbers of cameras at that end of the market, so for a retailer to stock them there needs to be a worthwhile profit margin. In days gone £1000+ would have been the norm in most market sectors at that sort of of price point, nowadays I'd doubt they'll be making £500 on them.

The thing is though mate, it's all speculation, will we ever truly know how much the trade is on a D3? I think there's more chance of finding out who shot JFK in all honesty.

Take brands like Elinchrom and Profoto for example, yes the quality is superb but come on, 6500 euro's for a large octabox? up to 8000 euros for a generator that lasts for a few hundred pops at full power and takes several hours to charge?
Of course there are exceptions and sliding scales here and there but generally speaking, it's all a bit unbalanced for me, the above examples are prime examples.

With regard to life expectancy, most modern products are fair superior to those of only 25 years ago - back then it was still common to see a 3 year old car covered in rust, nowadays you'll hardly see rust on anything under 10-years old, unless it's a Mercedes (opens second can of worms :nono and as you say mobile phones etc are engineered to last for years and years, again forcing the manufacturers to seek other ways, such as built in obsolescence, of attracting custom.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence there mate, I have an Atari 800XL with disk drive that's half the size of my gas generator which still works, compare that to the 2K Tiny PC that my folks bought 10 years ago and it suggests the precise opposite.

Every mobile phone I have ever had has not lived for longer than a year with the exception of the one I have know which is on it's last legs at two years.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Digital has not changed the two essentials of photography.

Visual awareness
And understanding and control of light.

 

[kickstart]

I run a design and event company and digital has improved our lives immeasurably but also throws up new challenges.

Being able to quickly get a picture from istock or have one emailed from a photographer has saved the day for us many times. I will admit that budgets for photography have been slashed, however it's something I fight hard for.

One thing we do is to run 3-4 day conferences and we use a highly skilled photographer to record the event. The result is that at the end of the conference we can present the delegates with a record of the event, set to music, stirring their emotions and leaving them on a high. We can add pictures at the last moment and we can supply all the pictures for them to take away with them afterwards. The cost comparison with producing a video of the event makes it a sensible and frugal choice.

The other aspect I would hi-light is the use of mobile phones and cameras by the public at news events. Think of the G20 demo's and the police's conduct. Would that have been in the public eye without this type of public reporter/photographer? The combination of digital and the internet allows for the rapid dissemination of this material, for both good and bad.

 

[desantnik]

The other aspect I would hi-light is the use of mobile phones and cameras by the public at news events. Think of the G20 demo's and the police's conduct. Would that have been in the public eye without this type of public reporter/photographer? The combination of digital and the internet allows for the rapid dissemination of this material, for both good and bad.

Ahhh yes, "we are all photo-journalists now".... the very thing thats killing journos and at the same creating rubbish news content.

I'll admit it does boost the coverage, but its pretty poor stuff usually.