[ebooks4pentax]

Dear Pentax friends,

For a while now, I have been watching what the Professional Photographers are doing. Of course there are many different field in which photographers can specialize. From wedding Pro-Photographers to National Geographic contributors, from Sport Pro-photographers to Stock Photography photographers. I see a trend that has me worried about the future of Professional photography.

Now that digital photography has surpassed film photography in Image Quality (for the most part), now that digital has a clear advantage in the number of photographs one can take at no costs other than the cost of memory cards, now that the price for a good DSLR is affordable for the masses, it seems that everyone can join the world of photography and come up with photos that rival Pro-Photographers. Yes, Pros know more about the techniques of photography and that was well and good in the film era. In the film era, it was costly to take pictures and a lot of time was spent composing the images. With DSLRs, you can shoot thousands of pictures in one weekend or even in one day. By sheer luck, fantastic pictures can emerge out of so many takes.

So everyone owning a decent DSLR and good glass can now do just as good as the Pros do, by shooting a ridiculous amount of pictures, and in Auto-Mode. One good picture will emerge every now-and-then even if an amateur doesn't know all of the composition rules.

I read most of the Canadian and American magazines every months. Out of all the magazines I read, two are a pretty good indication of what is going on with the Pro-Photographers. They are ShutterBug and Outdoor Photographer. I see current well-known Pro-Photographers writing articles and offering photo seminars and workshops in these two magazines. Look for yourself, you will find these well-known photographers offering educational seminars and workshops. Bruce Dale, who published more than 2000 photos in National Geographic. Bob Krist, who published in National Photographic as well. Frans Lanting (Who I believe is the current most talented photographer of all). The list goes on forever: John Shaw, George Lepp, Joe Farace, Moose Peterson, etc, they all offer seminars and workshops. Why aren't they busy making tons of money shooting for publications and corporations? Yet, maybe they are, but something's going on. Don't get me wrong, these and many other Pros not named here are the masters of the trade and I admire their photographs and buy their books. I just don't think that they will be replaced in the future.

Magazines, publications, advertisement companies can buy any type of photographs these days for next to nothing. Stock Photography Agencies are chuck full of good pictures that they sell for just a few dollars, leaving enough profit to the photographers to buy a McDonald hamburger with fries and a large Coke. The market is wide open and very few companies are giving out assignments worth several thousands of dollars. What are Pro-Photographers to do?

Well, thousands of newcomers and amateur photographers are still aspiring to become Pro-Photographers, get famous and make big bucks. Looking at the current trend, it seems to me that some of the well known Pro-Photographers have an opportunity to make big bucks, for a while anyway, by fueling the aspiration of newcomers. There is a lot of money to be made by giving seminars and workshops about our beloved subject of photography. The Pros know that the profession is rapidly fading away and other than publishing coffee table books and teaching the skills to other, the market has shrunk tremendously. It is as difficult to become a famous photographer nowadays, as it is to become a Rock Star. The best way to make money may be by fueling the desire of individuals aspiring to become famous.

In the very near future, I believe that still DSLRs will give way to sophisticated Camcorders that will render very high quality still photos from the streaming videos. Imagine that, picking any of the video frames and rendering a 14 megapixels or more still photograph from one frame. Magazines, as we know them today, are gradually fading and giving way to Internet based news and hobby forums and blogs. You...reading this very blog does indicates that, doesn't it?

Does that mean that Photography will be a thing of the past. NO, it will be here forever, but I believe it will be more of a tool for personal satisfaction and a mode of expression, shared with family and friends. It will still be one of the most popular hobbies in the world, but I don't think that there will be that many opportunities to become famous and make a good living from it.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but look around and analyze what I wrote herein and look at the world around you. It's moving faster everyday, and technology is making giant leaps.

Photography will be my passion until the I die anyway...I just will not quit my day job, as I still want to buy my beloved Pentax equipment.

As always, thank you very much for reading.


Yvon Bourque

[Gooshin]

even if everyone and their grandma was armed with a D3 or MkIII's, you will find very few people flying in special order helicopters doing an ariel shot of a new on water oil rig construction

even if everyone learned how to actualy be a good photographer, you will find very few people that are willing to tread through swamp land for a week trying to nail that perfect shot of a crocodile

even if you follow the latest fashion trends, you still would need a solid team, space, equipment, and effort to conduct a quality photoshoot


sure everyone has a camera, but not everyone has the time and full range of equipment necessary to tackle specific jobs.

as for seminars... thats a very tricky matter.

[deejjjaaaa]

the middle class of photogs will be disappearing gradually - few will go up the ladder and the rest will go down (need a day job)...

[alohadave]

This is a classic example of supply and demand. The supply of 'photographers' has gone way up, therefore, the average price paid goes down.

That said, there will always be cream of the crop, and they will always be recognized as masters of their craft, no matter how many wannabes are out there.

It's a cutthroat business, and that will tend to drive out non-competitive people. The market will balance out, but the old rarified photo field is gone forever. Adjust to the new landscape.

dSLRs aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Just as 120 format rollfilm is still in use, and 4x5 cameras are still being sold, dSLRs will be around for a long time.

[straightshooter]

With DSLRs, you can shoot thousands of pictures in one weekend or even in one day. By sheer luck, fantastic pictures can emerge out of so many takes.

This is known as the "blind hog finding an acorn" method of photography. lmao

even if everyone learned how to actualy be a good photographer, you will find very few people that are willing to tread through swamp land for a week trying to nail that perfect shot of a crocodile

Yep. How many people are like Mattias Klum and willing to race a snake downstream, wade out in the stream and get in the way of a King Cobra to take it's picture. And then have to use the camera in defense to fend off one very mad cobra.

CW

[ll_coffee_lP]

Well I will agree with the OP that things are changing, and changing rapidly, however everything has it's context, and from that you can either be a nay-sayer or roll with the changes.

Yep, anyone can be a photographer now. I'm would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise, as I'm fairly new to it also. You can say...woah is me - things will degrade, professionals will no longer be around, etc., etc. You wouldn't be entirely wrong, but this is a pessimistic attitude.

Or you could say..Yes! Now I too can take up this hobby that I've always had an interest in and enjoy it. Now you can share and learn with many more people too. Perhaps you can even take some amazing photos and maybe make a few dollars. Excellent!

Great photographers will continue to adapt...that's what makes them great. Great photographers now who bitch and whine about the future are perhaps - not great photographers to begin with.

The only thing that has changed is the door have been opened for mass appeal. You can either embrace it and continue to develop, or shelter yourself in your own little world and reminice about "the good old days".

Just my two "optimistic" cents worth...

c[_]

[deejjjaaaa]

It's a cutthroat business, and that will tend to drive out non-competitive people.

not exactly - those just will not be full time photographers - but there
are more people who can create a competition at the bottom - be it a cheap stock photo or cheap wedding gig

[alohadave]

not exactly - those just will not be full time photographers - but there
are more people who can create a competition at the bottom - be it a cheap stock photo or cheap wedding gig

Good point, though I was thinking about the OP's top Pro-photographer segment.

[Ash]

A bleak outlook that is, but the truth is now just about with every profession - to thrive you need to work smarter, not just harder. The business of the profession is just as important as the skills of the profession.

Would have to agree - a good photographer doesn't need to worry about what's happening elsewhere - he/she just keeps on producing top shots and getting clients. Lots of people think they can just make it by reading magazines and attending a course or two... let them think that way - time tells what becomes of their aspirations...

[Pål Jensen]

I read most of the Canadian and American magazines every months. Out of all the magazines I read, two are a pretty good indication of what is going on with the Pro-Photographers. They are ShutterBug and Outdoor Photographer. I see current well-known Pro-Photographers writing articles and offering photo seminars and workshops in these two magazines. Look for yourself, you will find these well-known photographers offering educational seminars and workshops. Bruce Dale, who published more than 2000 photos in National Geographic. Bob Krist, who published in National Photographic as well. Frans Lanting (Who I believe is the current most talented photographer of all). The list goes on forever: John Shaw, George Lepp, Joe Farace, Moose Peterson, etc, they all offer seminars and workshops. Why aren't they busy making tons of money shooting for publications and corporations? Yet, maybe they are, but something's going on.Yvon Bourque

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

[deejjjaaaa]

Good point, though I was thinking about the OP's top Pro-photographer segment.

who cares about the top ones ? we actually never completely stop making steel here... but the bulk is gone.

[MRRiley]

Yvon...

One of the reasons that professional photographers ARE professional photographers is that the people who buy their photos can count on them to deliver the goods. An experienced pro doesn't have to take 1000 shots to get the one that the magazine wants. He might shoot 100 or 10 or even 1.

As you state, the affordable high-quality DSLR has enabled more people to take great photos, but the difference is that the average amateur lacks the experience or capabilities to get THE SHOT reliably. He might be able to get the shot in 10 frames or it might take 1000. And the next subject he shoots will probably show a wide variation in "keepers", etc etc.

Now, can an amateur get lucky and get that one great shot and then get it published? Sure, but unless he demonstrates that he can do it again (and again) he will be a one hit wonder, and the magazine is not likely to call him for an assignment. Photo editors go to the guys who they know can get the shot, not Joe GOTLUCKYONCE.

Of course, another thing to consider is... what is the definition of the term "professional photographer"??? The most basic is, naturally, someone who makes a living taking photographs. If this is the case, you have to be willing to accept a wide range of skill or ability in the photographer. A much published staff photographer for Sports Illustrated is arguably and clearly a professional photographer. However, what about the 20 year old college student who works evenings shooting portraits at Walmart? He is probably taking cookie cutter shots using preset lighting and exposure settings but he is making his living shooting these photos. To his credit, he also "delivers the goods" in that the customers are largely satisfied and pay for the photos, thus Walmart continues to employ him. Technically he is a "professional" under the definition I have postulated.

So, does simply "getting paid for it" make one a professional? Or is there a threshhold of objective or subjective quality? Do you have to take photos worthy of being published in SI or is the satisfaction of Maw & Paw Kettle after a Walmart sitting sufficient? Is there a a club to join or is recognition by other "pros" required? You see, the question is not at all straight forward, nor are the answers clear.

Agree? Disagree?

By the way, I do not intend any of these statements to downplay the skill of multitudes of amateur photographers. As you said, many photographers (including several on this site) can take photos rivaling those of many professional photographers. Could many of these folks make money at photography. Sure, but they may not want to for many personal reasons...

[Clicker]

...no the old saying a pro gets paid isn't the real reason, i know a few "Uncle Bobs" who get some pocket change for weekend weddings


The primary distinction (right now); the working pro can get that shot day in and day out consistently, whereas the amateur from novice to advanced enthusiast will probably hit it once in awhile. As i've said before; the camera is just a tool and nothing more, it's the person behind that view finder that determines the final image and the working pro gets it more often then the non-pro.

[stevebrot]

Yvon...

One of the reasons that professional photographers ARE professional photographers is that the people who buy their photos can count on them to deliver the goods. An experienced pro doesn't have to take 1000 shots to get the one that the magazine wants. He might shoot 100 or 10 or even 1.

As you state, the affordable high-quality DSLR has enabled more people to take great photos, but the difference is that the average amateur lacks the experience or capabilities to get THE SHOT reliably. He might be able to get the shot in 10 frames or it might take 1000. And the next subject he shoots will probably show a wide variation in "keepers", etc etc.

Now, can an amateur get lucky and get that one great shot and then get it published? Sure, but unless he demonstrates that he can do it again (and again) he will be a one hit wonder, and the magazine is not likely to call him for an assignment. Photo editors go to the guys who they know can get the shot, not Joe GOTLUCKYONCE.

Of course, another thing to consider is... what is the definition of the term "professional photographer"??? The most basic is, naturally, someone who makes a living taking photographs. If this is the case, you have to be willing to accept a wide range of skill or ability in the photographer. A much published staff photographer for Sports Illustrated is arguably and clearly a professional photographer. However, what about the 20 year old college student who works evenings shooting portraits at Walmart? He is probably taking cookie cutter shots using preset lighting and exposure settings but he is making his living shooting these photos. To his credit, he also "delivers the goods" in that the customers are largely satisfied and pay for the photos, thus Walmart continues to employ him. Technically he is a "professional" under the definition I have postulated.

So, does simply "getting paid for it" make one a professional? Or is there a threshhold of objective or subjective quality? Do you have to take photos worthy of being published in SI or is the satisfaction of Maw & Paw Kettle after a Walmart sitting sufficient? Is there a a club to join or is recognition by other "pros" required? You see, the question is not at all straight forward, nor are the answers clear.

Agree? Disagree?

By the way, I do not intend any of these statements to downplay the skill of multitudes of amateur photographers. As you said, many photographers (including several on this site) can take photos rivaling those of many professional photographers. Could many of these folks make money at photography. Sure, but they may not want to for many personal reasons...

You hit the nail on the head. I entered a few images at the county fair this year and was amazed at the number of entrants as well as the very high level of competition. Despite the (literally) thousands of beautiful images, I doubt that most of those competing could reliably turn out a dozen of equivalent quality each week, much less the hundreds needed to generate a livelihood.

Steve

[superbass]

I think amateur photographers sometimes place too much emphasis on the word pro. Being pro is really subjective. I'm sure if you talked to a group of wedding, nature, or artist photographers (all professionals in their own respect) they would all have very different opinions on what it is to be a professional photographer.