[RioRico]

[ David Hobby: A Baltimore Sun photographer took a buyout, started a website, and changed photography forever. - By Steven I. Weiss - Slate Magazine ]

By teaching a horde of novices the skills necessary to shoot photographs of a quality that was until very recently only within the grasp of an elite few, Hobby has played a significant role in the transformation of the profession. In the last few years, the market rate for many types of professional photographs has dropped by as much as 99 percent.

Now we know whom to blame, eh?

[Eruditass]

Well, I think David Hobby exposed it to a much wider audience: the book illiterate.

[aurele]

it's not said in the article but we all know that digital change the equation : no i can push the shutter 400 hundreds time in a day, before i could do it only 48 times (2 rolls) per month du to costs. When you can shoot that much for free, you can do a lot of picture. more picture, more chance to sell one.

However, be aware that those who suffer from that are not pro photo reporter, just those who earned just enought to live...

[stevbike]

I started photography 30 years ago. The market for the payed pro has always been a small one. I think the market has changed in regards to number of images being produced by the digital market place. There are a lot of blogs besides this persons that where giving out lighting advice. Published books have given this for decades. The internet has newer updated info of this info ten fold. I learned years ago to produce studio like lighting with very simple light boxes on small flash units like the Vivitar 2500 and 283. I got lucky a few times and sold some pictures. Given the amount of work I put into setting things up, the low cost the people get was not worth it to me in the end. I still enjoy doing pictures for myself. I like the look of slick looking ad types photos I have taken myself.

If both parties involved in the process where to take a good long look this practise, the picture takers better start looking at the real cost of doing their business. Heat, hydro, business insurance, the cost of keeping up travel costs with a car, etc. all have to play into the final cost of the pictures being used.

I think that with the growth of digital picture taking will see the need for the payed pro become less, not more. Large companies will still pay top dollar to the people they use to create their images but many smaller businesses are seeing much smaller cash flow these days so whatever they can get to be used for promoting there business will make use of free imaes where possible.

[stevbike]

After reading this post and thinking about a bit, I think that real killer of the pro photographer was the humble Kodak roll film camera in 1888. That gave the masses a camera that could be used to take their own pictures. From there, as the equipment improved over time allowing the average person the chance take their own pictures any way they liked. With the web opening its doors, the postings of images that can be used has just taken off. Just look at this sites photo galleries to see the wide range of pictures Pentax users take. I think many users of cameras now can produce work that can equal the work of pro. Depending on what is needed, the need for a pro will go down.

[DigiMack]

I find looking through old catalog can be quite interesting and informative, if not educational. An example is found in the 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck & Co (Reprinted several times by the Crown Publishers, Inc. & General Pub. Co.
Limited). Typical of the ads for cameras being sold by Sears was the new Kenwood Folding Camera (selling at $4.98) came complete “without extra charge”, “-a copy of our new 112 page manual, COMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS IN PHOTOGRAPHY, the making of perfect pictures is a simple matter, even for those without the slightest previous experience or knowledge of photography.”
So folks, should we cast blame upon the Sears, Roebuck & Co.? Or, maybe it was the plastic Brownie box cameras sold to everyone and his brother by Kodak that introduced so many people into the photographic world?
For myself, I suspect the Digital camera and easy to use software programs by Kodak, PhotoShop and others may be identified as true culprits, for now millions of enthusiasts could mass produce photographs without bearing the cost of film, chemicals and Darkroom equipment, and they could do so in a matter of minutes, rather than spending half of their nights in the Darkroom.
Oh, don’t let us forget the “Big Box Stores”. Why, if they would not have sold million of cameras, Inkjet printers and assorted software programs at cut-throat prices on Black Friday, not nearly so much of the public would even have cameras.
With a little more thought, I am certain this diatribe could be continued to include the Internet, E-bay, cells, etc. But, what’s the use? I sincerely believe the true cause, found in most any occupational field, is known as PROGRESS.

[MRRiley]

Anyone can take a great photo every now and then... It takes a true professional to take a great photo most times out of the gate... and even then he won't manage it every time. Consistency is the difference between successful professional photographers and the vast majority of the rest of us. And nothing that David Hobby did can change that.

Mike

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 04-22-2011 at 04:52 PM.

[NaClH2O]

*snip*

Professional photography is, in many instances, more about presentation than product, and it is entirely possible for us to kill our own businesses by not having good presentation. This includes gear that makes the client think they have hired someone who knows what they are doing rather than someone who spends more time playing Rube Goldberg than photographer.

I agree with all of what Wheatfield wrote but especially the above. As an ex-professional chef, I learned a long time ago that presentation is always a key. The "pretty as a picture" steak is unlikely to come back to the kitchen if it's under/over cooked, but just slap some meat on a plate an throw a few veggies around and that customer isn't coming back.
There is a concept: "percieved value received". That means that if I spend x dollars on a service/product, I expect a value of at least x dollars in return. The successful professional photogs understand that. They don't show up with rube goldberg equip, at the end of the day they don't just hand you a CD filled with jpegs, or at least that's not all you get. As the article says, anybody can do that. A successful pro adds value to the product.

NaCl(that's how it looks from where I sit)H2O

[Mike Cash]

All he really did was to point out that some simple and easily portable gear can enhance your work outside the studio....that things need not be complicated or bulky.

I can easily carry adequate gear for simple lighting on the back of my motorcycle. I'm not one of the Strobist nuts who fawns over Hobby like he's some sort of photographic messiah, but I do appreciate having pointed out to me the very simple idea of carrying and using off-camera flash in the field. All the more since I live in a typical cramped Japanese apartment and anything resembling even the most modest of home studios just is not an option for me at all.

Some of my greatest satisfaction came at my photo club's 2010 exhibition when several people marveled over my having been able to get the shots I exhibited without using flash.....and then telling them "I used flash on every single one of those."

[Ron Kruger]

For every capable pro today, there are thousands using DSLRs like glorified P&S cameras, taking millions of exposures, and getting lucky thousands of times--and they would gladly give their images away, just to be published or win some trinket in a contest.
They don't need to know anything. Auto functions are so sophisticated and accurate these day.
Digital technology is what is killing professional photography as we knew it.

[pacerr]

For every capable pro today, there are thousands using DSLRs . . .

Perhaps, but I, the lazy amateur, am not going to set out to capture a bass as it strikes a specific lure under water to satisfy an editor's requirement -- or better yet, induce that demand in a customer. (Although I might be "baited" into helping design the underwater rig pun intended).

I might stumble on that image by luck or accident, but no one's gonna offer to pay me on the unlikely chance my million monkeys might photoshop an image of Shakespeare some day.

No matter how many folks make "snapshots" for family or hobby, there's going to be a place for a photographer that can consistently produce top quality images on demand whether it be for portraiture, fine art, advertising, forensic/industrial purposes or . . . whatever?

I know of a few instances where the knowledgeable P&S shooter knew just enough to want that imagery and also realized that on-demand, technically correct imagery needed expertise-for-hire to get the job done efficiently. Same thing goes for reconsidering the decision to use a commercial printer when the department XEROX machine was beckoning just down the hall.

Once upon a time the "pro" photographer was the only game in town and every "family" wanted ONE photograph. Today there's a lot more "families" and there's also a greater demand for one or more really good photos beyond the quality of the shoe-box snapshot; and here "families include the commercial/industrial/popular press presence.

H2

[stevbike]

I have done a few jobs for people from a number of weddings to an air to air picture of a airplane. The need to get good quality picture puts you on the spot. It makes you like a lot more about what the person needs. In the case of the air to air pictures, the need for the photographer needs to double as the spotter to keep the the two planes save and in formation while keeping within the range of the camera lense.

I shoot some truck bodies for a company for there sales kits. This simple act took a lot work in regards to people having to move the vehicles into locations suitable for clean images. It is not just the act of taking the picture, it is the ability to direct people to make things happen to allow the photo stage to be set. You have to learn how to see the final result in your head and to see how get the results. It is a lot of responsiblity.

I have just done very part time basis but the demands for doing any type of photo work above simple snap shoots needs the ability for the photographer work with others to get a good photograph that works for the client. Teaching nice lighting is just one of the steps neded to help you become a working pro. Good business skills are the real skill needed. I found out that I lack this skill but still enjoy creating quality images for myself.

[borno]

I think the article is overly dramatic. People will still hire pro's when it counts. I doubt they will use uncle Joe with his foam board reflector and cereal box snoot for their wedding pics.

[Mike Cash]

I think the article is overly dramatic. People will still hire pro's when it counts. I doubt they will use uncle Joe with his foam board reflector and cereal box snoot for their wedding pics.

We certainly get enough "Help! My First Wedding!" threads to make me think Uncle Joe gets a hell of a lot more gigs than you might think.

[cabstar]

david hobby & cheap dslr's are not destroying photography. its the amateurs giving their images away for a derisory bye line.

If you want your images to be used professionally then upload them to alamy, photostock, iphoto or any of the many stock photo sites that have sppeared as part of the digital revolution. hey you might even get paid....