Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Is new digital technology rendering photographers obsolete?

  1. #1

    Default Is new digital technology rendering photographers obsolete?

    Dear all, just something to share with you guys.

    Last weekend I was at a friends wedding. Upon seated I was looking around for the photographer wondering what kind of equipment he was using. Then when I saw him, I was surprised to see him using a Nikon Coolpix 8800 with a flash attached. That wasn't even a Digital SLR, just a 'Point-and-shoot' camera to me. My intuition tells me that this person is either a friend doing it for free or he just uses cheap equipments.

    So my next question is, is technology ultimately gonna render photographers obsolete? In the past when everyone was using film, only the real pros and experts in the field are hired for events or other photo shoots be it for magazines or other editorials. But now with Digital cameras, everyone and anyone with a camera can say he or she is a photographer. Digital allows more room for experimenting and less room for error. And seeing so many people owning a camera these days, I wonder how are the full-timers gonna sustain their livelihood.

    Of course, not everyone with a camera can be considered a good photographer. But not everyone can become a Russell Wong or Ken Seet either. For those who are just average photographers in this industry, do you face the strain of freelancers' stealing your rice bowl away? In my opinion, photographers do not have any protection against freelancers eager for success becos no law states that you must have a license to be one (unlike taxi drivers, teachers and other professions).

    So what do you guys think?

  2. #2
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    What's wrong with using a 8800? I used a 5700 to cover weddings before, and so did jOhO.

    It's not the equipment that matters, it's the end results. As long as the wedding photographer can deliver, it's all that matters.

    Don't have to worry too much about the full time professionals, they have their rice bowls intact, you should worry for those who try to cash in on the digital-cow. Would it be like IT, bubble tea or like outsourcing? Who knows.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default

    my 2 cents..

    with the technology, the WYSIWYG comes into mind, now we dun really need to blindly shoot like before, hence any tom dick or harry can pick up a camera to shoot the wedding & view it instantly...

    but den again... not all ppl holding cameras are able to take nice pics... technology is limited to certain aspect it can't shoot what you think you want it to be... thats when professional & experienced comes in.. you pay more for these types of professionals... not you pay hell lot for a guy using a P&S...

    anyway, there is also some freelance & pros using these Prosumers, Coolpix 8800 isn't a P&S, its more of a Prosumer... enough flexibility from a P&S yet, lacking in certain features from its DSLR brothers.
    Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    www.fuzzyeyeballs.com
    Posts
    8,242

    Default

    There is this guy taking photos for me during my wedding, using a DSLR ...

    Saw those pics after that ... told him to delete all ... bought him coffee ... thanked him ...

    This is a true story. So what do you think?


  5. #5
    Moderator Clown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    iamasaint did a wedding with a lomo b4..
    use whatever it takes to produce the results u want.
    a smaller camera is less fearsome than a DSLR and u might get better ppl shots cuz they're not so concious of the cam aiming at them.
    sigh.

  6. #6
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clown
    a smaller camera is less fearsome than a DSLR and u might get better ppl shots cuz they're not so concious of the cam aiming at them.
    One reason why I don't like to use torchlight

  7. #7
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,867
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    a DSLR/SLR doesn't equate to good/great pics. neither does a PnS/35mm compacts mean bad pics. a colleague of mine, who got married last yr, had a 'pro' using a DSLR shooting her wedding dinner at marina mandarin. guess wat? we, friends, took better pics using our hp cams/PnS/35mm compacts than the 'pro', so said my colleague. go figure....

    A camera in hand doesn't make one a photographer. It just means that you are a cameraman. An expensive camera in hand only means dat you are a RICH cameraman.
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed.” ― Deeksha Mittal

  8. #8
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightwolf75
    a DSLR/SLR doesn't equate to good/great pics. neither does a PnS/35mm compacts mean bad pics. a colleague of mine, who got married last yr, had a 'pro' using a DSLR shooting her wedding dinner at marina mandarin. guess wat? we, friends, took better pics using our hp cams/PnS/35mm compacts than the 'pro', so said my colleague. go figure....
    Don't like that leh, I very stressful leh

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Potong Pasir
    Posts
    149

    Default

    "Good" or "bad" camera systems, you still need the photographer to make the picture. Unless someone invents a robot that take pictures. Then again, it's hard to make artificial intelligence to appreciate moments and situations.

    so I guess we are here to stay :P

  10. #10

    Default

    dslr will still produce better pictures..hehe

  11. #11
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    I have taken a wedding with a prosumer b4, but was held back by the equipment.
    espn infect the prosumers with your virus.

  12. #12

    Default

    Terry Richardson
    Terry is one of the world's most popular (and infamous) fashion
    photographers. he's shot for celebs like Sharon Stone, the Spice
    Girls, for titles like French Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, The Face, and
    *gasp* the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (every male's wet dream)
    and for brands like Tommy Hilfiger, Armani Exchange, Sisley and Gucci.
    and what does he use? simple point-and-shoot cameras!!! no big Hassy,
    no lighting design, no planning. read about him here...
    http://www.newyorkmetro.com/shopping...ichardson1.htm
    http://www.apogeephoto.com/jan2002/pmag_12002.shtml

    David Bradford
    he's a New York City taxi driver, who shoots just one roll of black
    and white film a day during work. he's done photo assignments for
    Life, The New Yorker, New York Newsday and other publications. editors
    for Germany's Köneman publishing house happened to ride in Bradford's
    cab and were so impressed with his images that they offered a book
    assignment, "Drive-By Shootings". what does david use? a el cheapo
    Yashica T4.
    http://www.takegreatpictures.com/art...lt.asp?aid=111

    David Burnett
    this is a multiple award-winning photographer, who's worked with
    titles such as Time mag, Life and the French photo agency Gamma. he's
    won awards such as 'Magazine Photographer of the Year' from the
    Pictures of the Year Competition, the 'World Press Photo of the Year',
    and the Robert Capa Award from the Overseas Press Club. his
    prize-winning photo of Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore hangs
    in the Corcoran Museum of Art in Washington, and what did he shoot it
    with? a US$20 plastic Holga.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...per/010706.htm
    http://www.davidburnett.com/

  13. #13

    Default

    Its not the camera, its the photographer that creatively captures that moment.

  14. #14

    Default

    Thanks for the websites.

    It's .

    Camera is just a tool. Don't let your tools get in the way of your creativity.

    Enjoy photography to the fullest.

    Cheers!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Town of Queens doing PORT-9YOU
    Posts
    12,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by user111
    dslr will still produce better pictures..hehe
    Under good hands, that is.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Camera is just a tool, it the photographer whom is the creative one. A good friend and one of the top professional photographer in singapore like to say: " It the singer not the song "

  17. #17

    Default

    I guess there is a point.
    Not all who owns cameras can shoot as effectively as a professional.
    I myself had helped a friend on a wedding shoot and it's not as easy as it seems. In fact I learnt after the shoot that there are so many rules and things to look out for that a normal spectator wont notice.
    Then again, I gotta ask this. Will the influx of freelancers literally pull down the market value of full-timers.
    Maybe some customers who are not so particular about photo quality is willing to pay less for a freelancer just to cut cost. So even if there is no direct threat to full-time photographers, will this trend eventually casue photographers to earn less than they used to?

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    IMHO, everything has its own market

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Astin Studio
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by de_stan
    In my opinion, photographers do not have any protection against freelancers eager for success becos no law states that you must have a license to be one (unlike taxi drivers, teachers and other professions).

    So what do you guys think?
    Why need a protection? In free market, good ones will success, average ones will survive, bad ones will disappear by themselves.

    Any bad photographers who are still around?

  20. #20
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astin
    Any bad photographers who are still around?
    You called?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •