[BigMackCam]

Just my two cents but this just doesn't seem like a nice way to go about things. I joined originally because I found instruction by example to be helpful for my own hobby, not to cowtow or pander to someone because they may or may not have made money doing it. If anything, I have found a deep respect for some of the regular members here and the cumulative centuries of experience. Experience and instruction is how we learn, not some fru fru online certification.

Is photography dead? Nah. It's just not on such a high horse as you think it should be.

[edit] But then again... this is posted in photographic industry and professionals so... yeah. Doesn't seem very professional to me.

There's elitism, snobbery, tribalism and "othering" in all professions, all hobbies etc. I've literally just now had a conversation with my Dad... He and I are both licensed ham radio operators, though I don't really use it these days. Anyway, he's talking to folks on the radio this evening, and he was bemoaning the lack of knowledge, poor operating practices and poor audio quality from many newly-licensed hams on the air... especially those with "novice class" licenses. I had to remind him - respectfully, and playfully - that (a) everyone has to start somewhere (as did we), (b) it's not doing anyone any harm if those new hams have much to learn and their operating standards leave a bit to be desired at this point, (c) they'll most certainly improve with time, experience and assistance, and (d) shouldn't we be happy they're making the effort and keeping the hobby alive?

Just because we know - or think we know - more than someone else, we shouldn't view them as inferior and it shouldn't make us feel superior. If what they do displeases us, we can simply ignore it. If they ask for our feedback or help in improving, we can offer it (respectfully and tactfully). If they're charging us for their services, however, we have a right to expect quality - and if we don't get that, we'll go elsewhere in future... but still, we needn't sneer at them or their abilities.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-18-2022 at 01:38 PM.

[Yaki]

have to skip in a bit, but there are things taken out of context from all of us.

How does one claim to be a professional photographer, when once relies solely upon photo editing to make an image? When basic skill and knowledge is replaced simply by the photo shop AI program...

Being amateur is no an excuse for not knowing basic rules of photography if you want to take good pictures. I speak for myself here and others can think a different way. In the end of the day everyone gets what the want. But for a Professional Photographer it seams stupid not to know and use those rules, by my opinion.

AI is great enhancement for nice noise reduction when photographing in low light conditions and you need some speed and you can not use a flash, with a good raw file in hands. I don't know other usable function of AI.
Maybe eye detection but it is incamera AI. Which reminds me that I must try it soon.

[BigMackCam]

Being amateur is no an excuse for not knowing basic rules of photography if you want to take good pictures. I speak for myself here and others can think a different way.

I've seen some very good pictures taken by folks with fully automatic point-and-shoot cameras and smartphones. It definitely helps enormously to know and apply the basic rules of photography, but everyone has to start somewhere, and it's still possible to take great photos with minimal knowledge and experience. A good eye gets you an awfully long way. Actually, one of the things with technological advancement is that it's making it much easier to get great results in a variety of situations without so much understanding and application of the fundamentals... and some folks don't like that, as it's rapidly eating away at their "special status" in being able to produce great photos. It's that elitism thing I mentioned in my previous post. But, you know, if what they produce looks good, why should that matter? I'll say again, it doesn't stop us from doing things the hard way for our own enjoyment and satisfaction

[DeadJohn]

...vinyl records...is Photography considered to be the untouchable...

I'm in agreement with you; photography isn't dead but it has changed. Some photographers have a rigid opinion on what technology other people should be using.

As far as vinyl, when vinyl records were invented some old men were probably yelling "no, you must use a wax cylinder!" And those old men's grandparents may have complained decades earlier that only people who attended a live performance were worthy to listen to music. "Recorded music is too accessible, damn kids!"

[Yaki]

I've seen some very good pictures taken by folks with fully automatic point-and-shoot cameras and smartphones. It definitely helps enormously to know and apply the basic rules of photography, but everyone has to start somewhere, and it's still possible to take great photos with minimal knowledge and experience. A good eye gets you an awfully long way. Actually, one of the things with technological advancement is that it's making it much easier to get great results in a variety of situations without so much understanding and application of the fundamentals... and some folks don't like that, as it's rapidly eating away at their "special status" in being able to produce great photos. It's that elitism thing I mentioned in my previous post. But, you know, if what they produce looks good, why should that matter? I'll say again, it doesn't stop us from doing things the hard way for our own enjoyment and satisfaction

I can not disagree with that because I have this example in my home - my wife uses only the smartphone but often she gets better pictures then me - that's what you call a good eye I suppose. and I really enjoy the hard way.
The point is that in some conditions it is almost impossible to take a good picture without knowledge and if one wants to do it for money (that's my understanding of being Professional) - one must learn and master the essentials of the art before starting doing it. Than he can continue using automatic functions until he needs to do something else. Otherwise he/she probably will lose clients when failing to do what is expected because of lack of knowledge. That's why I think it is stupid. Not that it is bad.

[BigMackCam]

I can not disagree with that because I have this example in my home - my wife uses only the smartphone but often she gets better pictures then me - that's what you call a good eye I suppose. and I really enjoy the hard way.
The point is that in some conditions it is almost impossible to take a good picture without knowledge and if one wants to do it for money (that's my understanding of being Professional) - one must learn and master the essentials of the art before starting doing it. Otherwise he/she probably will lose clients when failing to do what is expected because of lack of knowledge. That's why I thing it is stupid. Not that it is bad.

Absolutely. I like doing things the hard way too Or, at least, it's what I consider to be the hard way based on my own frame of reference as someone who took up photography in the last 15 years... Photographers from 50 - 100 years ago would undoubtedly cringe at the technological advancements I routinely benefit from Still, I like to control shutter speed and aperture for creative effect with motion and depth of field; I like to use natural and sometimes flash lighting effectively; I like to choose a lens with an appropriate angle of view and frame my shots as accurately as possible; I like to get my exposure as accurate as possible or expose for the shadows or highlights depending on the situation. I don't always achieve precisely what I intended, but I aim to. I like to get the shot as good as possible in-camera, then fine-tune it in post-processing. BUT... when it comes to post-processing, I'm neither shy nor apologetic about improving my photos. I quote myself in another thread:

I aim for the best possible photo straight from the camera, but I'm absolutely comfortable with post-processing to adjust white balance, exposure, contrast, clarity, saturation, tone curve, noise reduction, sharpening, lens distortion, colour profiles, etc. The thing is, just because an image comes straight from the camera, doesn't mean it's a completely honest reproduction of the captured scene. Lighting conditions, dynamic range, sensor and lens performance - amongst other things - often result in images that don't look how our eyes saw them. Some post-processing is often required just to make a photo look realistic, before we even get into the realms of artistic adjustments.

I also remove dust spots and clone out bits of litter when I think they spoil an otherwise-perfect scene...

[Richardefotf]

On some days I wonder if we have lost touch with "the art of photography", but those are the days when I am tired, and perhaps a little bit depressed. Overall, I believe that photography is more exciting than it has ever been. There are more opportunities and fewer external obstacles to good photography than at any time since I started making images, some seventy years ago. Some days, I actually get excited about the possibilities. Other days, I sit with my older friends and bitch and whine like the old man that I am. However, I do not ever bitch and whine about photography. It's just too much fun to go shooting! R.

[BigMackCam]

On some days I wonder if we have lost touch with "the art of photography", but those are the days when I am tired, and perhaps a little bit depressed. Overall, I believe that photography is more exciting than it has ever been. There are more opportunities and fewer external obstacles to good photography than at any time since I started making images, some seventy years ago. Some days, I actually get excited about the possibilities. Other days, I sit with my older friends and bitch and whine like the old man that I am. However, I do not ever bitch and whine about photography. It's just too much fun to go shooting! R.

Bitching and whining is one of the privileges of getting older, Richard I'm only 52, but I've made an early start. I look forward to more of it as my years advance, based on the sound example set by my Dad

[normhead]

Is photography dead?

I just can't relate to the question, I can tell you one difference though. 30 years ago I shot my sisters wedding, I directed everything photographic but then used my time honoured practicee of (stay the frig out of the way") to do most of the shots in that case there was glass on three sides of the service, I didn't even need flash.

Jump ahead to my daughter's wedding, I did video, had two family members with cameras and with myself shooting the main shots and two auxiliary views to cut too, it was pretty impressive. My daughter hired a photographer, and the guy was the ultimate professional. He allowed me to follow along with my *ist D and get as close as I wanted to where he was shooting from. I got some very nice complimentary images.

Jump forward 15 years, one of Tess' nieces asked me to shoot her wedding. I did the same old same old, get what you need, but stay out of the way as much as possible. After the wedding, the minister came over and said, I was the nicest most respectful photographer he'd ever worked with and the because of it, he'd actually enjoy the ceremony. But you can bet, at 70 years old I was exhausted when the day was done.

I have no other commentary on the way things are done today. Evidence but no conclusions.

As for photography being dead, I've probably average 10,000 images a year with often as many as 100 being print worthy. IN the old days, I'd shoot 240 frames on my yearly canoe trip (10 rolls of 24) and maybe 400 for the whole year. Personally, I produce more images I consider to be worthy of printing big every year than I did in my whole film shooting life.

Maybe other people's photography is dead, I don't know. For me, I finally have the freedom to shoot the images I've always wanted to shoot. To stop and take a shot because "maybe it will work" and to do an instant review to think "maybe if I move 10 steps that way to get rid of that tree branch" and do it because I haven't gone anywhere.

One of my pro buddies who did catalogue work, went from a 6 man shot to 2, and took advantage of tethering to talk to the catalogue editor while shooing, him in his studio, the editor in his office. His work did not deteriorate because of digital, it became easier. Same with me.

But the downside of that is, when I moved up here I expected to be paid $250 an image for my work, that dropped to $25, now everything they need is donated. There are a pile of great images floating around waiting for someone who will pay for them. People are competing to give away images to the park, just for credit in the print publications. So it's easier for me to get great images, it's a lot harder to sell them. I've shown the park a couple of books, they've offered to sell them in the book store, but I have to pay to have them published. They'll sell them for a quite reasonable 20% of the final sale.

Incidentally, Tess and I found a publisher cheap enough to possibly do a book run, and an idea for a book. Few years ago, everyone wanted money like they were doing all the layout editing etc. even though they were just a taking a file and printing it. They wanted to sell you advisors editors, all the people they used to need before desktop publishing. I printed small run of 6 books over Christmas with family pictures and couldn't believe how quick it went compared to even 5 years ago and the price was a fraction of the $130 my first book cost to have printed. $23 a copy. Things are looking up. Change takes time.

But that's just my circumstances. YMMV.

[Yaki]

Absolutely. I like doing things the hard way too Or, at least, it's what I consider to be the hard way based on my own frame of reference as someone who took up photography in the last 15 years... ... Still, I like to control shutter speed and aperture for creative effect with motion and depth of field; I like to use natural and sometimes flash lighting effectively; I like to choose a lens with an appropriate angle of view and frame my shots as accurately as possible; I like to get my exposure as accurate as possible or expose for the shadows or highlights depending on the situation. I don't always achieve precisely what I intended, but I aim to. I like to get the shot as good as possible in-camera, then fine-tune it in post-processing. BUT... when it comes to post-processing, I'm neither shy nor apologetic about improving my photos.

I am Very much like this except with much less experience

[Lowell Goudge]

snip…..

Incidentally, Tess and I found a publisher cheap enough to possibly do a book run, and an idea for a book. Few years ago, everyone wanted money like they were doing all the layout editing etc. even though they were just a taking a file and printing it. They wanted to sell you advisors editors, all the people they used to need before desktop publishing. I printed small run of 6 books over Christmas with family pictures and couldn't believe how quick it went compared to even 5 years ago and the price was a fraction of the $130 my first book cost to have printed. $23 a copy. Things are looking up. Change takes time.

But that's just my circumstances. YMMV.

I think this is the new direction, small runs to pass along your images. My daughter does this with her trips, and uses an online service where she does all the editing, and layout, and they just print the book.

I am looking to do the same with not only some of my wildlife prints, but old family shots from generations past. But that will have to wait until retirement

[smcrae]

A long time ago, common sense and skill ruled photography. If you needed to deal with alot of sun, you got a lens hood on your lens. If you were dealing with reflections in stuff, you got a CPL on that lens and fiddled till it was good again.

Now, in the world of photography those basics concepts are GONE.. I am serious. Really I am. I guess the ability to use the AI feature in photo shop has destroyed skill or common sense. Afterall the certified professional photographer course of study is 35% digital post production. And the CPP test itself is going by several older tests found online, roughly 40% digital editing based.

And roughly 10% based on basic camera knowledge like shutter speed, iso, aperture, and dealing with common issues solved with a lens hood.

On forums i have been, people who have sold services as a photographer for 10 or more years, have been excited by newbies to cameras, who have exclaimed "i did a shoot with a friend, i took 400 photos and I actually got ONE that was good enough to edit in photo shop".

And called them skilled...

I attended a wedding a few years ago. It wasnt great but i had taken my nikon d7500 and my vitomatic II to do some specialized photos. I wasnt allowed to take them out of the car sadly.

The so called professional photographer was an idiot. Sure the woman had scouted the the wedding spot 2 weeks before but had not been smart enough to go back the previous day due to the weather changing.. fall weddings outside require that effort you know. SO when the wedding started, the woman could only do half the photo work because she couldnt PUT A LENS HOOD on the lens..

Could not comprehend that she would have to change positions for shooting based on those conditions, just absolutely failed..

But worse yet was her "student/assitant". They TRIED to do a photo of the bride inside a room with the blinds closed... absolutely could not do a thing. They had to turn the lights on and open the blinds wide open.. Even though the camera being used by the 'profesional" was a Nikon D5.

And in the photos I saw.... the camera had been left in the auto exposure setting.....

So there are people around who aren’t smart enough to hire a good photographer for their wedding, I don’t think that implies that photography is dead. The memories they got back could have been better, but weren’t. If the photographer was as bad as you suggest, then the images from the guests might well have been better than the professional ones - but if all they really wanted to do was post shots on Instagram then they are probably happy with that anyway.

I think there may be more interesting topics to explore under your interesting headline than “is wedding photography dead?” - that is really about whether people are willing to invest in having a good professional photographer there?

I can tell you that there is some stunningly good photography in my Instagram feed - from both professionals and amateurs.

Then there is the fascinating question about why film photography is booming as people actively learn all those skills that you say are dying.

[Kiwizinho]

But the downside of that is, when I moved up here I expected to be paid $250 an image for my work, that dropped to $25, now everything they need is donated. There are a pile of great images floating around waiting for someone who will pay for them. People are competing to give away images to the park, just for credit in the print publications. So it's easier for me to get great images, it's a lot harder to sell them. I've shown the park a couple of books, they've offered to sell them in the book store, but I have to pay to have them published. They'll sell them for a quite reasonable 20% of the final sale.

Incidentally, Tess and I found a publisher cheap enough to possibly do a book run, and an idea for a book. Few years ago, everyone wanted money like they were doing all the layout editing etc. even though they were just a taking a file and printing it. They wanted to sell you advisors editors, all the people they used to need before desktop publishing. I printed small run of 6 books over Christmas with family pictures and couldn't believe how quick it went compared to even 5 years ago and the price was a fraction of the $130 my first book cost to have printed. $23 a copy. Things are looking up. Change takes time.

But that's just my circumstances. YMMV.

This. The sheer proliferation of photos, good and bad has devalued all images. That doesn't make photography dead, it just makes it harder to get paid, and at the same time high quality gear continues to cost a premium, and possibly even more than ever as it becomes more of a niche market due to the proliferation of phone cameras that serve for most people.

I've gone down the book route myself. Self-publishing is way easier and more affordable than it ever was, and the way everything's gone economies of scale matter. I might not be able to sell many photos for people to put on their wall, especially given all the competition, but I can make an affordable book with a coherent narrative that would be hard for anyone else to do even if they have phone photos in some of the same locations. That actually worked quite well and I managed to sell several hundred copies of my first book, whereas I've never sold even a hundred prints. My second book hasn't been quite as financially successful, but my local council bought quite a few, and a number found their way into the hands of international dignitaries. Although the value per individual image is quite low, I've made far more money from my books than ever selling individual images.

[BobL]

A long time ago, common sense and skill ruled photography. If you needed to deal with alot of sun, you got a lens hood on your lens. If you were dealing with reflections in stuff, you got a CPL on that lens and fiddled till it was good again.

Now, in the world of photography those basics concepts are GONE.. I am serious. Really I am. I guess the ability to use the AI feature in photo shop has destroyed skill or common sense. Afterall the certified professional photographer course of study is 35% digital post production. And the CPP test itself is going by several older tests found online, roughly 40% digital editing based.

And roughly 10% based on basic camera knowledge like shutter speed, iso, aperture, and dealing with common issues solved with a lens hood.

On forums i have been, people who have sold services as a photographer for 10 or more years, have been excited by newbies to cameras, who have exclaimed "i did a shoot with a friend, i took 400 photos and I actually got ONE that was good enough to edit in photo shop".

And called them skilled...

I attended a wedding a few years ago. It wasnt great but i had taken my nikon d7500 and my vitomatic II to do some specialized photos. I wasnt allowed to take them out of the car sadly.

The so called professional photographer was an idiot. Sure the woman had scouted the the wedding spot 2 weeks before but had not been smart enough to go back the previous day due to the weather changing.. fall weddings outside require that effort you know. SO when the wedding started, the woman could only do half the photo work because she couldnt PUT A LENS HOOD on the lens..

Could not comprehend that she would have to change positions for shooting based on those conditions, just absolutely failed..

But worse yet was her "student/assitant". They TRIED to do a photo of the bride inside a room with the blinds closed... absolutely could not do a thing. They had to turn the lights on and open the blinds wide open.. Even though the camera being used by the 'profesional" was a Nikon D5.

And in the photos I saw.... the camera had been left in the auto exposure setting.....

Sadly, the situations you describe are common place these days, with unskilled operators taking the place of professionals based on price. Back in the day when I shot on film an "average " wedding was 3-4 rolls of 36, a large wedding could be up to 10 rolls. Every shot counted, and aside from the odd unflattering facial expression or the like, every shot was a success. I had to time roll changes with the flow of the event or miss important moments, that was a skill in its self. Today it's "Spray & Pray" with thousands of shots being taken in the hope of jagging an occasional useful one. Is it any wonder that the profession is no longer respected. As a lecturer in photography for weekend warriors for 31 years & a master photographer, I have watched this decline of the industry whilst trying to teach real skills to those willing to take them on board, but it has become to easy to fix things in post production (photoshop) rather than getting it right in camera. Nothing beats having the skills to get it right in the first place, rather than fixing up an image and spending hours on a screen just to get a basic usable shot.
I know of at least 1 operator who uses high end cameras, shooting the events on video from a bank of cameras in strategic locations & edits out his stills from the video, he is one of the counties top photographers commanding very high prices, but have to pose the question ... is this really photography? The only skill is selling his services, placing the camera & the editing afterwards is done by his staff. And people fall for it.

[Archone]

That's why photographers need 30 frames per second and 500 auto-focus points. Close your eyes, press the shutter button and hope for the best. That's the way it is now, accept it.


She was smart because she had relationship with her customer. Photography skills didn't matter much if you didn't have a personal relationship, hence were no allowed to take pictures out of the car.

This is true.... sadly.

Case in point, my girlfriend. A former professional Wedding and Event photographer. A notorious Green Box spray and pray shooter with a 1Dsomething Marksomething with various Red Rings at her disposal.

She's not a bad photographer, but she's not a good one either. She knows her basics, but also knows that Green Box will get the shot and Red Rings and the 1Dsomething Marksomething will have the quality that customers want.

What she also is, is very good with people. She has that list in her head (and clipboard) of all the money shots that clients want. She is also excellent and corralling drunk people and getting them to take a decent photo.

Its rare that you have true creative photographers in this field of photography as its more of a photo mill than anything else. You're more of a documentarian and director than a fine art photographer. When I would second shoot with her, it was Green Box all the way mostly for a kind of continuity of styles. And I left the 645Z at home.


Once we did an experiment and I took the formals using the 645 (original) on Portra 160. Everyone loved the way it looked. But honestly, if it was shot digitally they would have been just as happy. Most people are just not that concerned with quality or style. They say they are, but they're not. And if they are, they're likely wanting you to copy the most recent trend. And generally they're definitely not willing to pay extra.


Me personally, I will stay in advanced amateur land thank you!