Since the rapid development of digital capture, is our interest (photography), currently too focused on technical advancement and it's ramifications?
Now it seems photography is just as much about consumerism and brand loyalty as it is about the craft. I would also state this is mostly seen in the amazing growth of digital S.L.R.s over the past five years. It is more the fault of the imaging corporations themselves than photographers, we all seem to be at the whim of companies that exploit the divisions of us into such groups based on what brand we use. The whole full-frame debate runs with this exploitation.
I had a discussion with a photographer yesterday, and we agreed how great it would be if we could all share things better amongst ourselves and not be locked into being a supporter of one brand over another...but i guess, that's the way it goes.
Such phenomena is inevitable i guess. Its just "
personal growth" and everchanging tastes and preferences.
Again, i don't think theres a "wrong aspect" as you have abovementioned for photographers to patronize a brand or follow up closely in the evolution of the photography progression.You have to understand the underlying reason why photographers are onto issues like consumerism. Most of em' upgrade to further improve , to adjust, to experiment new horizons.
To be nitpick on technicalities and all just goes to show that the photographer is indeed being concern and objective about the greater craft. I doubt that many will just splurge on the latest gadgts out of the act of being hip or whatnots. Jumping into the bandwagon of advancements in technology is not a sinful indulgence, it is about stepping up and you must realize that there is no force and coercion(spellcheck pls,lol) in place.
No one is at fault really in such cases. Providers supply, & its ultimately up to consumers to select. There will be rivalry and all but thats strictly business. Brand proliferacy and sovereignty is essential in capturing a larger market share. At the end of the day. noone is being forced to be devotees for any brands. And if they are self-acclaimed devotees anyway, I reckon' there's not a tad wrong with that. As I have impressed upon, it is the trust of the certain brand.
In addition, brands varies for self identity & uniformity. Not forgetting there is freedom of choice. It is what photographers deem appropriate in accordance to what they feel is their niche area of photography and what they want to achieve. (I shall sidetrack a lil, hoho)Thats why elsewhere, there are country singers and rock singers, you cannot just belittle this diversions and just say all singers should just sing every genre. Then, we wont have this thing called identity I suppose?Of course, there are other distincts similar reference across the board.
On the notion of uniformity, people purchase the same brands over and over again to have a collection of related goods so as to not complicate matter perhaps. Like Adidas & Nike, you dont go around having a mixandmatch accesories of these two rival brands. (thats a lil generalisation on my part, but hey cmon now). Continuous consumption of same brands of goods is not a cause for concern indeed.
In my opinion, I think a healthier topic to ponder on is whether photographers should be overtly concern about how much revenue they can gain rather than looking at photography as an artform like you said a "Greater craft". In this case, choices are subjective and personal. So, theres no norms or a mandatory oneway option here. They choose, they happy. End of story. hehe
Oh wow, finally clubsnap gotta squeeze some brainjuices outta me, but yesh I admit thats some uncredible opinions i made. If only i visit here earlier, I wont fail my GP A levels. GAH!
