Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,220   Posts: 1,532,320   Online: 970
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    I agree with Tom. The advances in autofocus/motordrive/ ttl systems a few years ago had the most negative impact on professionals. But only slightly. It allowed a small number of people to bypass pros for specific small jobs.

    Today, with all this new digital technology it seems to be more for a specific purpose. It allows amateurs to place their snapshots on the web, or print for friends or send to each other etc. It does not really affect professionals at all.

    I will say that Photoshop/digital has allowed a new group of photographers to enter the realm, and that is women mainly, who photograph their children, and then branch off to become children's photographers. I think the ease of photoshop has given them an opportunity to enhance their work, doing it all inhouse, and starting a small business doing it. The beauty of this type of spontaneous work speaks for itself. Before photoshop, I doubt that they would have had the opportunity or the perhaps confidence to do this. Cheryl can probably address this better than I can.

    Whether this has hurt existing professional studios is debatable.

    I would like to point out that professional photography portrait studios have always held the belief that competition was good for business. Other photographers advertising would get the idea of family photographs into the minds of people and will increase your business as well. Snapshots, made people think, "I need to get a family portrait done".

    The real "competition " is stereo/tv/furniture type places, car lots, that type of thing, that you competed with for the family's expendable income. They were the ones that hurt you.

    The advent of photoshop did however hurt advertising photographers a few years ago, because it enabled companies to use images over and over by changing backgrounds, colors etc instead of employing the photographers again to create these new images.

    But in most cases, as others have said, if you don't have the talent, gimmicky equipment will not help you.

    Michael McBlane
    Last edited by blansky; 05-25-2004 at 12:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  2. #22
    sparx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Norfolk UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    376
    You also have to consider the kind of pictures being taken by snappers of friends, family, days out and the party the night before. These are not going to impact at all on landscape or fine art photographers and the like and, if anything, the explosion of digital cameras especially can only bring more people into contact with photography as an artform.
    [size=1]the all new darkplanet photoblog[/size][size=1]
    [/size]

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    The advent of photoshop did however hurt advertising photographers a few years ago, because it enabled companies to use images over and over by changing backgrounds, colors etc instead of employing the photographers again to create these new images.
    Excellent point... I never really even considered that, as I do both the photography and the digital editing myself. I guess that could have a big impact on certain photographers...

  4. #24
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    KwM, some influential PJs disagree:

    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040507_116.html

    and the NPPA Magazine photograher of the year (Alex Majoli, finally unseating Natchwey (tho Nachhtwey got the PoY)) did his winning work with a compact Olympus digi:


    http://www.nppa.org/competitions/bes...=MPY&place=1st

    Face it, the PRO PJ cannot be everywhere. But other people are. Those prison photos, like em or not, will stick in the public memory far more than any of the many contract-shooting prizewinners from the past year.
    Last edited by bjorke; 05-25-2004 at 06:41 PM. Click to view previous post history.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,537
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by dr bob
    Sounds like some of my students when they come to my "darkroom"/laundry room for the first time. " This is where you make the prize-winning prints?" Vis a vis: Omega DII (not "2") - trays on bench - the usual sink. No camera using a battery - Works for me.

    Yeah dr Bob. Omega DII with a Schneider lens and graded paper. If ya can't make great prints this way, ya can't make great prints.

    How's that fer smug.


    tim in san jose
    DII + B22

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jasper, Tennessee
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    73

    Too Many Photographers

    Too many photographers? Not really. There are just too many people with cameras. Theres a big difference. Unfortunately, everyone who can afford a $50 digital camera thinks that they are now a photographer.

  7. #27
    Cheryl Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,707
    Images
    211
    I will say that Photoshop/digital has allowed a new group of photographers to enter the realm, and that is women mainly, who photograph their children, and then branch off to become children's photographers. I think the ease of photoshop has given them an opportunity to enhance their work, doing it all inhouse, and starting a small business doing it. The beauty of this type of spontaneous work speaks for itself. Before photoshop, I doubt that they would have had the opportunity or the perhaps confidence to do this. Cheryl can probably address this better than I can.
    To a certain extent, I would agree. Digital and PS can help make a technically poor shot into a technically not too bad shot -- but it (almost) never turns it into a great one. Fortunately, when shown the difference, most people "get it." I charge very high fees compared to most portrait photogs and I have no trouble getting what I ask. Again, it still comes down to the skill and eye of the person behind the camera. I don't feel remotely threatened by beginning photogs who can fix some mistakes digitally and print it out at home.

    - CJ

  8. #28
    David R Munson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    408
    Images
    5
    How many people own cheap guitars? And how many can play like Jimmy Rosenberg or Eric Johnson?

    Point being that no matter how many people doing any particular thing, the cream will rise to the top. Most of those languishing in obscurity will always be talentless hacks and the uninspired, though admittedly there are always a few great ones that slip through the cracks.

    I'm not worried.

  9. #29
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    here is a web site for the guy that worked on Eric's guitars in the 80's.


    www.stevensguitars.com

    michael is a pretty fair builder also.


    lee\c

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    696
    Images
    21
    I see no problem with digital cameras being everywhere - as Cheryl so rightly said: "It's the photographer that makes the image, not the camera." I know my camera is a lazy bugger - not once has it gone out at 4.00am and taken photo!

    My print sales are increasing with the proliferation of digital cameras, not decreasing. I work mainly in landscapes, selling the prints in my gallery. People see a huge print and know they can NEVER make something so good with their little P&S digicams. When they add that to the fact they don't even SEE the things I'm showing, I know my niche is safe and my sales will continue.

    Digicams are no threat - they are in fact a marketing opportunity for good photographers, a chance to show your quality by direct comparison. Embrace them rather than fear them.

    Graeme

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin