Maybe it's because I work in a photo store and deal with customers everyday who are interested in digital cameras, but I feel "depressed" about the future of photography in a digital world.

In the "old" days a person had to know some technical things about photography before one could make good photos. One had to know something about shutter speeds, f-stops, what film is capable of recording,light, flash, etc. It wasn't that long ago that only "serious" photographers used 35-mm cameras. Hardly anyone carried a camera around. It's not that a Ph.D. degree was required to become a good photographer, but one had to spend a certain amount of time (and money)to become proficient at it. It was a bit of an accomplishment to make a good photo; not everyone could do it.

Now, thanks to ever increasingly sophisticated computers being put in cameras, the dues one once had to pay in learning the technical aspects of photography are greatly reduced. Practically anyone can take good photos now. With the technical aspects of photography largely taken care of by computers, one can more or less concentrate on composition. Making good photos doesn't seem as much of an accomplishment anymore. (I'm talking about the kind of photography that doesn't use anything more than on-camera flash.)

You wouldn't believe the number of people who buy top-of-the-line 35mm and digital Nikons and Canons who know absolutely NOTHING about photography and whose prior camera was a P&S. Many are taking pretty good photos now (some even want to become pros). That wouldn't be the case if it weren't for the computer. (These people feel sorry for me when I tell them I use an all-manual camera. They hope I can afford a nice camera soon.)

To add insult to injury, digital cameras even go a step further: immediate results, no film and processing expenses---and they're smaller, quieter, and cheaper than a Leica. Once the shutter delay problem in digital cameras is fixed, practically anyone can be a H. C.-B., an artist, a street or documentary photog. Most people interested in photography have a good eye or can learn composition quickly. (Didn't take a good photo? No problem; fix it in Photoshop!) I've sold a lot of digital cameras to jewelers and designers who used to hire pro photogs. Now they do their own catalog work---and it looks very good.

People don't even talk "photography" anymore. Instead of discussing film, chemistry, paper, f-stops, etc., people just talk "computer" (megapixels, compression, USB, firewire, etc.).

Then there's the Napster mentality of those people who don't want to pay for anything they get (yet they want to be handsomely rewarded for the work they do). Nearly everyday someone comes into the store asking us to make copies of a photo that was taken by a pro photog. When we explain that written permission from the photog is required because the work is copyrighted, they become indignant and say, "I'll just go someplace else." And they probably will find someone who will do it. It won't be long before most people will have the equipment at home to do it themselves anyway.

Photography doesn't seem as fun as it once was now that "everybody's doing it" and it's mainly about computers. I'd like to become a pro someday, but it appears as if it's going to be even more difficult to make a living in the future with the increase in the supply of photogs, and seemingly fewer people willing to pay much for photography.

Does anyone have a more optimistic view about photography in a digital world, especially any pros out there?

Brian

-- Brian Johnson (westie.javanet@rcn.com), June 06, 2002

Answers

"You wouldn't believe the number of people who buy top-of-the- line 35mm and digital Nikons and Canons who know absolutely NOTHING about photography .... "

And this doesn't hold true for leica cameras ?

"Photography doesn't seem as fun as it once was now that "everybody's doing it"... "

Why would this matter to you ?

-- leonid (murkacat@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

"Most people interested in photography have a good eye or can learn composition quickly." Not true, & that's where your worry breaks down. Good photography goes way way beyond easy picture taking. Good photographers remain rare. Good photography is subtle, talent- driven & difficult. Good photos are the result of practice, study of prior photographers & artists, & sometimes, obsession. Don't despair. Average, run of the mill snapshots are easier to take than ever. Exceptional photographs will remain as rare as they have been since photography equipment of any kind entered the public domain. Chin up, Brian!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), June 06, 2002.

Brian, I'm sorry if you feel that way. Personally, I am very thrilled and pleased that the medium is expanding and becoming easier and more accessible to the masses.

Pros will be pros. Sure, once in a while, anyone (including a monkey) can achieve a fantastic shot with a p&s digital, but that doesn't build a true portfolio.

Also, in terms of photography as art, I don't think people/collectors are very interested in purchasing a digital print out to hang in their living room. It just doesn't have that je-ne-sais-quoi and feel that one gets from a print on double-weight Ilford fiber paper (silver gelatin).

I think people are getting in to digital photography because it is new and hip. For the younger computer-savvy generation it is just another communication form. Once that passes, I think people will again appreciate photography as an art form as well as a hobby. SLRs were suppose to kill the rangefinder, you know...

Keep on smiling!

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), June 06, 2002.

Brian

I think you are probably right in your analysis. I think you have to think about what the point of photography is to YOU. Everything these days is a branch of computer science (but without most users having the faintest real idea of what is behind it all) - I find this depressing too as content no longer seems to count at all. But, does it really matter - why are you taking photos? If you have a real reason to take photos then the reason continues and you can continue to do this to the best of your ability with whatever tools are available to you. My purpose is mundane - to document my life and my family and to do it in the best way I can. I also try and take a few nice shots to put on the wall or be pleased with myself about their "artistic" quality. This reason does not change and I pursue this with a certain tenacity. There is no earth-shattering point to it, but I like to do it. If the purpose of photography, as it was, was the "knowledge" and the tools, then one might well feel depressed, but these are not really good reasons to be doing it seriously anyway - or rather they are not reasons to keep on doing it. Many of the high end P&S owners that trade them for Nikon D1s will probably never use their cameras for more than 6 months. This is a fact. Computers apparently make everything simple - but all it really does is that it ensure that for you to stand out you have to be even more unusual in your vision, or have an overriding purpose that is not challenged by the stupid vagaries of the digital age. Whatever is the point of taking the same picture of a scene that you can get on a postcard? We all have to have a reason to keep pressing the button: doesn't matter whether it is conventional or digital. What is your reason?

It does not stop me feeling the same as you at times - why is there a magazine called "Digital Photography", for example, how is this somehow different to "Photography" is a current irritation.

Don't worry: once the digital cameras have stabilized it will go back to being exactly like it was in the 80s - most people are just not sufficiently interested or prepared to take the time and energy to produce "good" pictures or continue to do it with any conviction and there is plenty of space for those who are.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

Brian,

You said that it is now easy for practically anyone to take good photos. I don't agree. It might be easier to take TECHNICALLY good photos, but there is a lot more to photography than exposure and focus. And have you seen any of the digital photographs produced by the average consumer with a digital point and shoot? They're often dreadful in my experience.By saying that anyone can take a good photograph, you're discounting the importance of the photographers creativity and skill.

When photography was invented, many people thought it would mean the end of painting, which at the time was the way many people had portraits done, etc. But painting is still around. I think traditional film-based photography will go the way of painting. It will become a medium used by fine artists and hobbyists, while digital photography will dominate the commercial areas of photography.

What scares and depresses me is that, as a pro, I won't be able to make a living shooting film. I do documentary work, and the idea that I'll have to give up my M6's and beloved tri-x and pick up some poorly made, non-leica digital camera is depressing.

-- Noah (naddis@mindspring.com), June 06, 2002.

The world changes; get used to it. As a computer programmer with extensive knowledge of the intel x86 instruciton set, I've seen demand for application-level assembly-language programmers go from insatiable to nearly zero as processor speeds have increased.

I wonder what the real photographic pioneers felt about the new-fangled rolls of film. (sarcasm) Anyone knows that the only real photographic craft is practiced by those who mix their own emulsions and coat their own glass plates. Film? You can't possibly guarantee a flat emulsion with that stuff. (/sarcasm)

Computerized cameras can deliver reasonably good results, just as film can deliver a reasonably flat emulsion. Whether this is good enough depends on the purpose of the photo. Obviously many people feel that film has been good enough, and that an automated camera's decisions are good enough. IMHO educated and experienced manual control can deliver better technical quality but for many people the difference isn't worth the investment of time and education.

OTOH, technical quality isn't everything. You seem to be grousing that one of the barriers to proficiency has been removed and that know-nothing amateurs have been admitted to what used to be an exclusive club. I'm very proud of my technical skills but if I don't have the vision to put those skills into pictures that people are willing to buy, my photographic skills are worth about as much as my programming skills. I say bring on the know-nothings. If their creativity and vision results in more competition, it forces me to push my own creativity instead of relying only on my technique.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), June 06, 2002.

Photography is an art form, of which no computer can recreate. You can try to program all these 'modes' into the lates DIA (do it all) cameras, but at the end of the day, Only a trained eye can see a 'finished image' from the settings used and not one that has been predetermined by a computer programme.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 06, 2002.

I take it as read that the composition side - "seeing" the light and being creative is just as difficult or easy as it has ever been. In fact the point where anyone could buy a camera and get great shots without any training has been with us ever since the AF SLR was introduced - most of these can be used as glorified point and shoots and have been used like this for ten years - so even with traditional film the point was reached where "getting the shot" is pretty easy. All that has happened is that the digiterati have suddenly discovered that for some unknown reason (marketing and digital buzz) computer photograophy is SO much cooler than film photography - there is no particular logic to this and it will die down. Boys like their toys to spend money on. It used to be computers, but they are dull nowadays, MP3 players are still in, and now it is the turn of digital cameras. The obsession will pass, but photography as you know it will remain.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

Brian: I think you are missing a crucial point... It is true that the "new breed" of computerized digital, or even higher-end 35mm pro cameras, is cabale of delivering a nearly perfect image technically speaking. However, that same computer lacks creative authority of any kind. This aspect of photography -- the art and craft of photography -- resides in the heart of the photographic artist's mind. Lastly, the title "pro" traditionally implied that the person had achieved a very high level of said technical proficiency; they were an expert at what they did. It has only been recently, probably concurrent with the expansion of professional sports, that the meaning has shifted to imply the person simply does "it" for a living.

So yes, simple product shots for catalogs or jewelry appraisals can be easily replicated by a "smart" camera in the hands of a "dumb" user; but the production of "art" will remain in the domain of the creative mind.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 06, 2002.

Technology is a double-edged sword. Things like TTL metering and AE and AF have allowed us to get more keepers when the light and action are changing furiously. But the proliferation of "advanced" features on film-based cameras which have led to the dozens of buttons and combinations of buttons and wheels that take us through endless menus and custom-functions make using them akin to flying a 747. And the digital cameras--even the P&S types--have more of them.

So I don't agree that the digital cameras, or the top-end 35mm's, are easier to make good photographs with--not even *technically*--for everybody.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 06, 2002.

I Imagine when the first 35mm cameras came out people complained you couldn't get good results and it tok away all the skill of the traditional photographer with a plate camera etc etc. Don't blame the technology - it's just another tool - a means to an end - not an end in itself.

-- Johann Fuller (johannfuller@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

Non-issue in my mind. It's like anything else. Did the introduction of the word processor mean no great novels were being written anymore? Did the proliferation of 'velvet elvis paintings' a few years back mean no great paintings were being made? A truly good artist, no matter what their medium, will shine above all of the 'ardent amatuers'. I too work in a camera store (though I deal mainly with the pro-end and students). I personally enjoy working with the students, young people, most of whom are keen to express their own artistic view of the world. Isn't it a bit elitest to take the attitude that photography should only be for 'the keeners'? Look at it this way. Kodak would long have been out of business supplying film only to the pros and 'keeners'. They make the vast majortiy of their money from the 1/2 billion plus camera owneres who shoot 3 or 4 rolls of film a year. If it wasn't for them we'd likely all have had to switch to digital a couple of years ago.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 06, 2002.

If digital technology allows more people to make more (mostly mediocre) pictures than ever before, then the few great shots will stand out even more than they have in the past. And whatever happens to the technology, there will still be relatively few people who develop good compositional skills.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), June 06, 2002.

The Pentax Spotmatic was the beginning of the end. . . . no, wait, maybe it was the Brownie #1 and film on rolls. Hardly anyone knows how to make their own plates anymore. :-(

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

I'm sorry Brian, but this sort of additude really pisses me off.

The idea that photography was/is some great alter that had to be worshiped for some long ammount of time before one could be "holy" enough to be allowed to take photos, is a bunch of crap. So digital technology has let the masses take more than point and shoot photos. So what? How does this affect anything other than your ego?

Do you know how to program your computer? DO you know how to fix everything in your car? Do you know how to run a printing press? Hell, how does a microwave work? In fact the kitchen is a great example. Does the invention of microwaves and food processors, mean that the professional chefs of the world are no longer needed because the masses now don't have to learn to chop vegetables quickly? Of course not. Why should it be any different with photography?

What makes you or me or anyone here important enough that we can say who should be allowed to be a photographer, pro or otherwise? Who are we to say what hoops anyone should jump through to get where we are now. Every generation has had advantages that previous generations lacked. There will always be some grumbling about it. That's the way of "progress", like it or not. We could all still be digging in the dirt with sticks.

After writing my reply, and rereading you post. I can't actually believe that this isn't a troll.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), June 06, 2002.

And Brian, I really want to state that if these are your real opinions (and not a rabble rousing troll), I wasn't lashing out against you personally, just that specific opinion. I'm sure you are a pretty cool person, as most people here seem to be. I just have strong feelings on that particular issue.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), June 06, 2002.

Kind of seems like a troll to me as well. To add insult to injury, digital cameras even go a step further: immediate results, no film and processing expenses---and they're smaller, quieter, and cheaper than a Leica. Once the shutter delay problem in digital cameras is fixed, practically anyone can be a H. C.-B., an artist, a street or documentary photog

What does this mean? Does the camera an artist make? Or should ability to afford an expensive camera be a prerequisite to making excellent photos? Photography is not really changing that much. There will always be the few people who really excel at their vision. Do you really think that just because someone has a fast digital camera they can be the next HCB?

-- nick (nicholas_rab@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

Millions of children have drawn and painted. Countless hundreds of thousands dabbled in art as a hobby. There was only one among them that became Picasso.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net.), June 06, 2002.

Marc, Nicely stated, but I'm relieved that, so far, there's only been "one" Picasso!!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), June 06, 2002.

Brian- Your post brings to mind a couple of Arab proverbs: 1) "All change is for the worse." 2) "The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on." ;)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

I agree w/ many of the comments above - generally that the same skills and perception are needed to take a good shot, digital or otherwise.

What I believe is one of digital's main issues now is the high rate of obsolescence of the digital medium and supporting equipment. Truth of the matter is, most people running for digital aren't using D60's or D30's, but rather garden variety digital point & shoots - which are then printed out on $100 inkjets. The results aren't really up to par w/ even a disposable Kodak. But the "neatness" factor of the process is exciting to many folks. The economics of photography are really driven by the weekend snapshooter - not the amateur, that's how Kodak & Fuji make all of their money. Now those snapshooters want a digital camera - that's what they're getting.

Now, in order to get a truly good printed digital image, you not only need to have a REALLY good knowledge of computers, but of software as well. All of this has a steep learning curve - and is constantly changing. I would bet not too many people have the time or patience to become proficient w/ Photoshop - and are using the substandard software that accompanies most cameras.

So what happens in 10 years when you want to make a new print of that great shot you have saved as a low-res j-peg on a cd-rom when your inkjet printed today seriously fades? Will there be equipment or software around to support it? Will we still be using cd-rom's? We'll probably laugh & consider we considered such technology cutting edge now that there are 25+Mpixel cameras available.

I do know one thing in 10 years, I'll still have a way to be able to make beautiful prints of my slides and negatives.

-- P. McEnroe (elcaptain88@yahoo.com), June 06, 2002.

I agree with most of the posts replying to Brian's post.

I just sat for my portrait for my firm. The process was painful. The photographer's digital system made the process worse. He used a consumer grade SLR. I took at least 30 seconds to download the image between each exposure. He took five exposures to choose from. All were bad - that is somewhat the fault of the model - but mostly the fault of the photographer and his choice of system. Much better digital gear is on the market. The gear used simply did not allow either the photographer or the model to relax and concentrate on the shoot. I suspect that similar issues will vex the efforts of shooters that do not shoot for a living.

There is a maxim of computers of old that applies to digital and film photography - "Garbage in, garbage out." It takes skill and study to get good photos into a computer. I agree with P. McEnroe that most consumers will not have the dedication or patience to learn Photoshop - even if they pay the steep price (you can get a good used Leica lens for the cost of Photoshop - and the price of the yearly upgrades). Most will not get a high end printer - I am waiting for the new Epson.

-- Doug Landrum (dflandrum@earthlink.net), June 06, 2002.

Hi Brian, for me there is nothing to be depressed about. Just the contrary. Digital cameras and home-based printing process will free a lot of people of the need of a traditional lab and will force the professionals who work in the lab to greatly improve the quality of the service that they provide to the average customer. For years I was hoping for that new era, where people could enyoy sharp and saturated images instead of dusty, scratched, blurred, croped and poorly saturated images they too often got from the traditional labs. I am shoked to see how many people think they take bad pictures just because they have systematicaly very poor prints. To me, most of the people can take decent pictures, the problem is that most of the people don't get ON PRINT what their camera just recorded ON FILM. If the image would be always well printed, people will see the difference between a very good shot, a good shot or a regular one. Some will try to improve... I realy hope that the new digital techniques will remove a lot of professionals who abused for years their customers. I think that they will feel soon the competition, even at the level of professional photography, where traditional printing process or even digital processes like Iris/Lightjet are challenged by the new generation of desktop inkjet printers, at least up to size of 13x19 inches.

I am not so sure of the survival of film for taking pictures. In fact who would like to use film if one day you get, highier resolution, better linearity, highier dynamic, more acurate colors and better sensitivity with a digital sensor put on camera that fulfill all the needs of a serious photographer : ability to record the image when you decide to do it, clear and precise viewfinder, choice of focal lenghths with control of the field of depth, minimum autonomy...? This will come within the next decade, I am pretty sure.

Paradoxally I think that film would be more usefull for archive purpose and display. Once the image is perfectly optimized it could be retransfered to a high resolution and durable film, to keep the image safe from possible changes of file format, colorprofile... Also you can have a large format print on archive quality transparencies. What really matters for me, is not so much the support used to record the image, but much more the printed image. When I hold a nice 13x13 inches photo, printed on a nice paper, I do not care if it was taken with a digital camera or a film camera. If the image is nice it is nice. There will be always good and bad photos.

Regards

-- Alain Maestrini (alain.maestrini@att.net), June 06, 2002.

Even though I cringe when somebody else writes something like this...

Photography is similar to a Porsche 911. In the beginning it was under powered, but a head turner. Everybody wanted one, nobody could drive one very well. Then things evolved and by the late '60's power and handling finally arrived. As the power and grip grew, the car became more diffcult to drive well, let alone to find its limits. I would say that the 911 did not enter the modern world until skip protection, dare I say Tiptronic and all wheel drive arrived. By the time all of these electronic AIDS arrived, the soul of the car had utterly changed from its rough and tough history. In short, anybody could drive the car reasonably well, even if they possessed little talent or ambition. There are still rewards for those that know how to push it, but the final 5% or so lies that much closer to the car- as-fashion-status-symbol-taking it to the mall crowd. It is simply marginalization by good engineering.

Labourous analogy...does anyone see the connection I am trying?

-- John Barton (bartj_011@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

People who are depressed about photography becoming too "easy" are obessed with the process rather than the results.

The truth is, only the results matter.

If I take a bad picture with a auto-everything digital point and shoot, this is no different than if I take a bad picture after hauling out my 4x5 glass plates, setting up the tripod and sweating bullets over movements, composition, exposure, zone system development and hours of printing in the darkroom.

A bad picture is a bad picture. A good picture is a good picture.

The important thing is not to worry about what everyone else is doing, but to concentrate on taking good stuff in whatever way you find most enjoyable.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), June 06, 2002.

Heh,

I got a 4x5 last year and sadly enough, my boring landscape shots that I used to take with a 35mm are still boring in large format. No magic bullet there. Maybe if I get a digital camera they will be better :-)

-- Nick (nicholas_rab@hotmail.com), June 06, 2002.

To me a great photographer sees what others don't see and shows it in photographs and photographers of that caliber in my experience are rare.

I agree it is easier than ever to take a properly exposed and well focused picture. I think that is a good thing but has nothing to do with the artistic side of photography.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), June 06, 2002.

Brian - there was probably a camera store counterman in 1937 who thought much along the same lines - "gosh darn these 35mm cameras - REAL pros shoot with view cameras, but now EVERYONE'S gonna think they can be a Bourke-White or a Arthur Steiglitz or an Edward Weston just by usin' one of those piddly l'il things. Pass the Sarsparilla, Fred!"

It's called change - and it was real then, and it's real now.

Digital photography will blossom out with its own artists. just as 35mm 'made' HCB and Gene Smith and Jay Maisel and (you name the artist....). Doesn't necessarily mean that 35mm will turn up and die, any more than large-format died after the '30's. Just ask Brett Weston or Paul Caponigro or Minor White...

Same with the intellectual property problems on the web. There are some musicians who love the web - despite the lack of payment - because it gets them recognition and feedback - cheap, and without the interference of the music company 'suits'.

If technology really does make it possible for Joe Blow to surpass the work of 'pros' just by paying for the equipment - well, the pros will have to get better or find a business that isn't the visual equivalent of a 'buggy whip' factory.

Personally I think there will STILL always be a market for really creative people to do really creative stuff with whatever technology is available (lead pencils still get a lot of use..)

If you love paddling around in Dektol or pulling the throttle on a 4-4- 2 locomotive specifically you may be in trouble, but if you just like making pictures or going fast, what's the dif?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 06, 2002.

"ALFRED Stieglitz" of course! A senior moment....!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 06, 2002.

An old sheet film Speed Graphic guy told me he was worried about the decline of photographic quality ; because of the new filmpak; and the dreaded "no think" roll films

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 07, 2002.

Brian.

You have aired an ever increasing view amongst many "photographers" who regret the passing of "real" photography. All industries go through this mood and you cannot hold back progress - BUT - there are very few first rate photographers. There are many, and an increasing number, of 'good' photographers. Modern equipment overcomes so many of the awkward and sometimes time consuming tasks of the past and allows people to take more 'snaps' - and that is what they tend to be. Digitising the image is no different from automated processing or enlarging. Digital images still cannot match a good wet print - they may catch up but I think it will be a long time. Photography is an art and however good the materials a final result of exhibition quality is still a rarity. Of course people can be lucky and take a picture of an event that caught the public imagination but that is press photography not art. Motor drives have made such pics much easier to capture - just look at the plethora of boring animal and insect pics. Anyone can take a dazzling picture of a butterfly with autofocused stabilised long focus lens and TTL flash. That is not art it is just photography. Photography will follow the same course as automobiles - mass, entirely reliable, clever,vehicles which are extremely competent will be the norm. The real artist will use classic or vintage cars and obtain enjoyment in producing top class results.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), June 07, 2002.