[navcom]

Very good points. I disagree though.

Let's compare it to the world of painting or other media arts besides photography. In the 19th century, art supplies were relatively expensive. In the last century, they became very affordable and mass produced, so much so that the ordinary person could make it into a hobby. On top of this, there was the spread of photography as another affordable art hobby. To the bystander 70 years ago, this would've surely signalled the end of the professional artist. The market would surely be saturated to the point that nobody could make a decent living as an artist any more.

Quite the contrary. Today the artist can flourish. Opportunities are everywhere...graphic arts, movies, photography like our own Benjikan, traditional media masters, painters with a twist like Kinkead. Museums, art shows, magazines, and exhibits are everywhere. Are there still "starving artists"? Of course...but 100 years back there were more because there was less opportunity.

Why is this so? New technology breeds new opportunity; not only in existing markets by making pro's even better, it opens up entirely new markets not even dreamed about before it's introduction. These new opportunities allow more folks to make a living using it...more jobs or even just more income from a part time job. Spread this over all areas of an economy and you have economic growth.

The result? More money in the economy means more normal people can buy art....that means more demand. With the increase in artists, there will inevitably be more products on the market to satisfy that demand. But most of these new artists are not "masters". Therefore, they will not get much money for their products. That's fine, as many of us normal people don't necessarily care to buy a $10,000 oil painting, but we can afford a $100 one. 100 years ago, we wouldn't buy anything at all, so in reality, the new technology opened up a new market.

The markets may change. The products may change. But the professional artists will still be there to satisfy the need for top-of-the-line product and there will still be demand for them....more so, because there is a flood in the market of bad products making the good ones stand out even more. Besides, there will always be something about a professionally composed photograph that inspires us to hang it over the mantel...something most of us can never create no matter how much money we spend on equipment.

because there is a flood in the market of bad products making the good ones stand out even more.

I agree with most of what you have said but the quote above isn't always true. Here's an example;
I work in an independent nursery and we sell quality plant material and provide personal service, a lot of the big box stores (one in particular) sell plant material at low prices without the service and a high mortality rate. The thinking was that these big box stores were killing the independents with their low prices. This has been proved untrue, the reality is that new gardeners buy these cheap plants which then die. Instead of going to an independent nursery after this, they just give up on the gardening completely.

[ebooks4pentax]

This post is generating a lot of discussion, which I am thrilled about. I have read a lot of good points here and my quest about the future of Pro-Photographers can only be answered hypothetically. Of course none of us have crystal balls. I hope that we will live long enough to see what the future will bring for the photography business or art. Undoudebly, it will bring some surprises, some good, some excellent and some not all that good.

[navcom]

I agree with most of what you have said but the quote above isn't always true. Here's an example;
I work in an independent nursery and we sell quality plant material and provide personal service, a lot of the big box stores (one in particular) sell plant material at low prices without the service and a high mortality rate. The thinking was that these big box stores were killing the independents with their low prices. This has been proved untrue, the reality is that new gardeners buy these cheap plants which then die. Instead of going to an independent nursery after this, they just give up on the gardening completely.

You are absolutely right. The good independents (those willing to adapt to inevitable change) don't go away. Some actually thrive. Some of these new gardeners probably won't try again, but most (not necessarily all) probably would have never stepped foot into the independent store to begin with. They shopped solely on price and got burned.

On the bright side, what you have there is a small market waiting to be tapped....a good marketing campaign to counter the "cheap store next door". .......

"Bad taste in your mouth because you bought one of those cheap plants from that other guy? No worries mate! Come to our store and we will not only give you healthy product, we will also SHOW you how to do it right so you end up spending less in the long run." Ohhh yeah!

So in the end, you look better than before!

[Lowell Goudge]

Haven't read through the whole thread but I believe you are wrong. Firstly, all these photographers have been leading workshops long before digital; even for decades.

I agree here, this is true, and will remain like that for a while

Secondly, having a digital cameras doesn't make you a better photographer.

No, but it allows everyone to take more photos because they are cheap. Keep in mind that a DSLR now, such as the K100 Super, or even a K200, plus a reasonable kit lens sells for the same number of dollars as a PZ-1 sold for in 1991. If you add in inflation, then a good DSLR is relitively cheap today. Since the cameras are so cheap, and there is no developing, people take more images, and it only takes one.

For that you need vision and be able to compose; neither is something the camera can do. However, I do think there are more photographers out there now due to digital and the internet...

see above, people can get lucky also.

To add to another comment, people talk about equipment. What is available today at the prosumer level is as good as or better than what was pro level 15 years ago. so equipment is also not the issue.

what will make a pro, as you correctly stated is vision, or to put it numerically the keeper ratio, how many really good shots per 100 taken, make the grade. the best photographer might only need 1, every time. That is a pro.

[navcom]

Since the cameras are so cheap, and there is no developing, people take more images, and it only takes one. see above, people can get lucky also.

That's a great thing for all of us, wouldn't you agree? It means there is opportunity for all to excel. But I don't think it spells the end of the pro photog. It just means there will be more ametuers like myself. I hardly pose a threat to the pro's.

10,000,000 pictures of someone's toddler having fun in the sand box, even if one happens to get lucky and catch the kid in a really cute pose, is still just 10,000,000 pictures of someone's toddler having fun in the sand box.

I've probably taken hundreds of thousands of images with a digital camera and have yet to capture anything close to the work of benjikan or Max Lyons.

Luck is luck, but good photographic composition is not. If someone doesn't know anything about professional composition and just takes pictures with the hope of getting lucky, they are beating at the air. You can take all the pictures you want, but if you don't have a plan and learn (i.e. become a professional), you will never produce professional results enough to make a difference to a pro's business plan. Just like the fact that I change my own filters, oil, and spark plugs becuase it's very easy to do hardly compromises the auto mechanic industry. Most people would still rather take their car to a pro because they don't have time to do it themselves (their time is money too) or they simply don't care to know how.

The fact is, the major threat the ametuer crowd poses to a pro are the handful that have a plan and are practicing to succeed and some day become a pro. They call this type of person a student. This threat has always existed and always will in any profession or skill. The DSLR has just made it cheaper to learn and changed the product possibilities. But the student still needs motivation to continue on to the pro level.

You can take 10,000,000 pictures, but if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.

[Eaglerapids]

You can take 10,000,000 pictures, but if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.

Great line, there, that should be the quote of the day.
Awesome thread.

You know, I think there are many pro photographers who simply love to teach, are good at teaching and in the hundreds of people they lead through workshops who will never take a great photo, they will find a couple who have a talent and/or who are willing to work hard to better themselves at photography and the pro will derive great satisfaction from helping those individuals evolve.

Maybe I could compare them to a fly-fishing guide, a little of which I know something about. I made a living at guiding so I guess you could have called me a pro in some sense of the word. Some of the people I guided will never become good flyfishermen for whatever reasons but even those people usually had great days because they were out of their daily grind, were outdoors in beautiful surroundings and were on rivers, it's pretty durn hard to have a bad day when you're on a river, especially on the kind of rivers I guided on. When these people had a great day, I had a great day. Every now and then I would get a client who maybe was a noobie at flyfishing and casting but who had an innate sense of fishing and who took directions easily, asked the right questions and learned quickly and these were very very satisfying days for me. I can't imagine it would be any different for a pro photographer. Just because a guy is a pro photographer and knows everything under the sun about photography will not make him successful providing tours and workshops if he isn't a "people" person and can't impart his knowledge to a noobie in a way that the student can understand and appreciate.
I would love to go on a tour to Puerto Rico and photograph birds and other exotic stuff, I wish I could afford something like that. Not to become the next National Geographic phenom, I will never be a threat to those guys, but to get away from my daily grind, to see some different part of the world and have a small chance to take a great photo for my personal satisfaction. It would still be outa my reach to just go on my own, but if I did I would probably wander around for days and probably not come close to the potential such a trip could provide. I bet there are thousands of guys like me especially since DSLR's have come down to the prices regular Joe's can afford.
Sure, there will be more competition since more and more people can afford the new technologies but that's a good thing, competition is always a good thing. The guys who can provide the good shots on a regular basis reliably will have their jobs and the ones who can teach will make lots and lots of money teaching all the noobies flooding the market with their cool new cameras.
I see this whole thing as nothing but wonderful opportunities for the talented guys who before couldn't afford competent gear and with great products finally becoming more affordable for the masses, more of these people will have a chance to share their visions. Many will spend lots of money and never take anything but snapshots that possibly only they will think is "good" but what's wrong with that if it makes them happy? I'd much rather be around happy people.... even if I think their pictures suck.
:-)

[Geekybiker]

I think the proliferation of cheap DSLRs is going to decimate the bottom end of the market. People with marginal skills as photographers that used equipment to differentiate themselves from uncle bob are going to feel the hurt. Uncle bob will have the same equipment as them, and the people who were hiring the marginal pros are looking for a bargin, not great work. They rarely have the eye to tell the difference between uncle bob and the marginal pros. I think the solution is to almost *raise* prices as a pro and proclaim yourself a "high end" studio. Hopefully your work can back that up, but in the abscene of any artistic vision, alot of folks hiring a photographer assume that more expensive = better.

As for stock photography? Its dead. Things like Flickr make data mining for a photograph you want absurdly easy. People will just steal the images or pay a pittance. Only commissioned images will probably net any real money in the future.

[stewart_photo]

For a while now, I have been watching what the Professional Photographers are doing. (snip)

At the bottom of the industry, the picture may indeed look bleak. Things are getting tough for wedding photographers working out of their homes or small studios with only a minimal of equipment. The same with local advertising photographers, independent (freelance) news or publication photographers, and perhaps even stock photographers. Some markets are now simply satuated without room for anyone else. At the same time, the photography service industry, as a business, is growing up, with customer expectations growing with that. And I don't believe one can directly blame digital photography for either of those.

That said, the future is not bleak for all. While this trend might hurt the small guy and push out some riff-raff, future businessmen (and it is a business) willing to invest in offering more comprehensive services at competitive prices will likely see increases in both customers and profits. And, of course, there will always be a demand for photographers able to deliver predictable results with minimal risk of failure.

The market at the other end of the industry (national publications, top advertising clients, etc), where reliable results with minimal risk for the client is the norm, appears to be growing. For example, photographers working for national publications (sports, news, etc) are earning more than ever before. And there are more commercial clients using more photographs then anytime in the past I'm aware of.

Since my business focuses on advertising and industrial photography, I can perhaps speak best about the latter. My client base (and profits) have been growing every year over the last decade. Online internet businesses now account for about ten percent of that, without any effort to seek those and being rather harsh at turning most away. And traditional clients, still the bulk of my business, are purchasing more images and paying more for those images.

I decided to semi-retire last year, cutting back by selling some investments and referring less-profitable clients to associates. This freed me to focus more on my core clients, allowing me to earn higher profits on each sale. Thus, even while reducing clients (and without the sell of those investments included), I still made slightly more last year than the previous year. Associates report similar or more robust growth.

In the end, the industry is certainly changing. But I believe there will be a place for those who change right along with it. And I'm not talking about digital versus film trivia. I believe a film photographer today can be just as successful as one ten years ago or twenty years ago. Instead, I'm talking about skills and business since I firmly believe those two are the foundations to success.

stewart

[dopeytree]

Real art photography maybe a bit like mine? My Gallery Will always survive as it's art and the right people love it.

The things that are changing are people doing so well with services, like I haven't had any promo band work in ages because people aren't willing to pay my prices (which could be 3-4x higher!)

I'm planning a big marketing rethink and rebrand of my website. Maybe specalise in weddings and band stuff with my arty photos to show how I use my eye etc and maybe try to aim at a higher market so less work but higher paying when it arrives.

Anyway we'll see...

[navcom]

In the end, the industry is certainly changing. But I believe there will be a place for those who change right along with it. And I'm not talking about digital versus film trivia. I believe a film photographer today can be just as successful as one ten years ago or twenty years ago. Instead, I'm talking about skills and business since I firmly believe those two are the foundations to success.

stewart

Great post Stewart! You are absolutely correct! My personal pet peeve is negativity. The world is full of negativity. The fact is that those who succeed in any business (and like you say, photography is indeed a business first if you are in it to make a living) are those that are positive thinkers...those who see opportunity when conditions inevitably change...and they will ALWAYS change.

We've all seen them...those folks who always seem to succeed no matter what? Some don't even seem to have talent, but they just can't seem to fail. The negative person attributes it to luck. In reality, they work very hard and most have failed countless times. But they don't see it as failure...they see it as "learning the ropes"...they learn from the failure, slightly alter their course, and push forward to their goal of success. Adapt and overcome.

They also know how to market themselves and see markets and opportunity where others see risk or failure. Example: the negative world sees a bad economy where stocks are plummeting and the stock market is bad and risky. The positive person ignores all the negativity and focuses on reality. They understand that the stock market and the economy are ALWAYS going up and down (always has, always will)...and buying low now could mean higher profits later.

The photo market is definately changing. But it and every other industry always have been. It's just reality and it's a great reality for those willing to accept it and get excited about the new possibilities. People are smart. As long as they are free, they will find a way to survive and thrive.