As of now, photography can be considered into two aspects, as a job or a hobby.(or both) rapid advancements in technology, especially in the compact camera sector, anyone is able to capture a properly exposed photo. The value of a photographer may drop as everyone finds it so easy to shoot. "Any Tom, Dick or Harry with a camera can take great photos, why hire a expensive photographer who gives you the same quality of work?" Even without a great camera or the necessary skills, photoshop will enable a person to manipulate the photo until it becomes "prefect". The availability of many "free" freelance photographers (may not be professional) in the market also drive the cost of hiring a photographer down.Will it become only a hobby in the future or will there still be room for the market of professional photographers to grow?
What is the future of photography?
- Thread starter k9sparx
- Start date
- Status
Not true.
You do not need great camera to make great shot
And you cannot manipulate a lousily composed / taken picture to make a great shot
Digital has just merely facilitated the uptake of people taking up photography as a hobby, and the learning process.
Ryan
Last edited:
it comes back to composition and creativity. its the man behind the camera that makes the shot.
My question to you...... are great photos only defined spot on exposures?? From what I gather, you lack an understanding of what photography is about. Creating great photos is not merely clicking the shutter nor diesn it only dabble with the technicalities. There are aesthetics/design input from the photographer which cannot be replaced with technology.
Once in a while, a dead horse comes back alive and people will start beating it again. Where's Sion when I need him? Sigh...
I believe technology only plays a small part. Ultimately, it is the eye behind the camera. Have a look at the critique section... compare the pros and the noobs and you can see the difference.
i feel every beautiful photograph is like a painting from an artist.
The photograph must be able to capture & express the feeling and atmosphere
at that very moment of time,
or else it is just another postcard.
Doesn't mean if you can afford a good & expensive brush, make you a fabulous artist?
The photograph must be able to capture & express the feeling and atmosphere
at that very moment of time,
or else it is just another postcard.
Doesn't mean if you can afford a good & expensive brush, make you a fabulous artist?
i guess there are many pple who will pick up photography at a snap of a finger, but more often than not, they will usually drop it just as quick 
juz my 2 cents...
its those that truly love it that "wins"....
juz my 2 cents...its those that truly love it that "wins"....
Ooh I love such discussions. What you are about to read is strictly my point of view. Any economics and theoretical reasoning used may be unreliable. HOHO
“As of now, photography can be considered into two aspects, as a job or a hobby.(or both) rapid advancements in technology”
Alike any activities birthed ages ago, evolution takes place. We see sporting events grow from pure recreation to careers along the years-how soccer derived as a form of leisure to a profit-driven business. So it is undeniable that the distinct line between these two aspects is seemingly blurred. We have to understand that most or even all who crossed over to making this sport a professional career derived from the passion and zest for the sport in the first place.
“The value of a photographer may drop as everyone finds it so easy to shoot.”
Having said that, do you think with the advancements in technology or in this case of exposure and incentives for sporting talents, everyone will be a soccer star? Or everyone will have the outstanding talent to break thru to be the next Pele? Okay, I shall not digress.
Easy to shoot does not equate to having ease in producing a quality portfolio. That theory you made is very vague. There’s so much more to both the technicalities and artistry/conceptualism to photography than just spot-on exposures. I suggest you expose yourself more to various kinds of photography to really immerse yourself to the wonders and limitless of photography.Likewise, not everyone who finds it so easy to snap will have the interest to render their services. Camwh*r*s, anyone?( is that allowed here? :/)
"Any Tom, Dick or Harry with a camera can take great photos, why hire a expensive photographer who gives you the same quality of work?" Even without a great camera or the necessary skills, photoshop will enable a person to manipulate the photo until it becomes "prefect".
I don’t see Tom Cruise, Dick Cheney or Harry Potter have any interest in photography as of now. Perhaps, they will once they pick up a camera, enthralled by the ease to shoot and decide to become the paparazzi themselves. Fine fine, lame but can’t blame me, the “lame aura” commenced as soon as the thread began. HOHO, no offense mate! Moving on, you contradicted yourself there, mister. Photoshopping is a skill, at least I believe so.
Next, I don’t think any of my photographs want to be “prefects”, that’s some tough responsibility. Okay, I’m mean. To some extent, post processing helps to enhance the image but like the countless discussions we had on this, it is not unlawful to do so and to each his own I guess. I recently sparked a heated, I mean healthy discussion on this notion so perhaps I’ll direct you there (click here) since I’m one of those guilty of post-processing addiction.
Hmm, I can’t seem to recall clinching the perfect result, cause sadly, friend, perfectness is non-existent.
“The availability of many "free" freelance photographers (may not be professional) in the market also drive the cost of hiring a photographer down.”
I don’t see why freelance photographers want to offer free services for the rest of their lives and I don’t see how this will decrease the cost of hiring a photographer. Perhaps, you thought with higher quantity of supply, price of supply will drop since everyone will be waging price wars and slash down prices of their services. This is theoretically correct to a limited extent but
we have to note the elasticity of the demand and supply factors.
Do people trust or want free freelance photographer for their lavish weddings and ministrial affairs?Maybe we should hire free freelance photographers for the upcoming F1! Is the hoard of supplies superior enough to influence a change in taste and preferences?
Customer sovereignty/loyalty is essential in business. If you have established a reputable position in the business, I don’t see how these incumbents will deter you from making profits. More so, setting the price based on the quality results you produced is the right thing to do. I also believe in the notion of luck. Sometimes if you don’t get scouted or be exposed, you don’t get the deal. Getting into the scene means you have to prove yourself over and over again. Top-notch magazines and publications won’t hire a Tom, Dick & Harry just because they offer free services. Just because you are a decent looking model who offers free runway services does not mean Vera Wang would want you to model her outfit.
“Will it become only a hobby in the future or will there still be room for the market of professional photographers to grow?”
I don’t understand why you question if photography has the probability to be purely a hobby after you rant on how everyone is going or have the potential to be professional someday. If services are rendered whether free or not, I personally would not see that as a hobby. I find it virtually impossible for photography to revert back to being just a hobby. Photography is a form of hobby, but it is not just confined to being a hobby. Think photojournalists, reporters and forensics! There is a room for everything, so there will definitely be one vast space for professional photographers to stretch their horizons.
Okay, thats fun! Just dropping my 72 cents!
“As of now, photography can be considered into two aspects, as a job or a hobby.(or both) rapid advancements in technology”
Alike any activities birthed ages ago, evolution takes place. We see sporting events grow from pure recreation to careers along the years-how soccer derived as a form of leisure to a profit-driven business. So it is undeniable that the distinct line between these two aspects is seemingly blurred. We have to understand that most or even all who crossed over to making this sport a professional career derived from the passion and zest for the sport in the first place.
“The value of a photographer may drop as everyone finds it so easy to shoot.”
Having said that, do you think with the advancements in technology or in this case of exposure and incentives for sporting talents, everyone will be a soccer star? Or everyone will have the outstanding talent to break thru to be the next Pele? Okay, I shall not digress.
Easy to shoot does not equate to having ease in producing a quality portfolio. That theory you made is very vague. There’s so much more to both the technicalities and artistry/conceptualism to photography than just spot-on exposures. I suggest you expose yourself more to various kinds of photography to really immerse yourself to the wonders and limitless of photography.Likewise, not everyone who finds it so easy to snap will have the interest to render their services. Camwh*r*s, anyone?( is that allowed here? :/)
"Any Tom, Dick or Harry with a camera can take great photos, why hire a expensive photographer who gives you the same quality of work?" Even without a great camera or the necessary skills, photoshop will enable a person to manipulate the photo until it becomes "prefect".
I don’t see Tom Cruise, Dick Cheney or Harry Potter have any interest in photography as of now. Perhaps, they will once they pick up a camera, enthralled by the ease to shoot and decide to become the paparazzi themselves. Fine fine, lame but can’t blame me, the “lame aura” commenced as soon as the thread began. HOHO, no offense mate! Moving on, you contradicted yourself there, mister. Photoshopping is a skill, at least I believe so.
Next, I don’t think any of my photographs want to be “prefects”, that’s some tough responsibility. Okay, I’m mean. To some extent, post processing helps to enhance the image but like the countless discussions we had on this, it is not unlawful to do so and to each his own I guess. I recently sparked a heated, I mean healthy discussion on this notion so perhaps I’ll direct you there (click here) since I’m one of those guilty of post-processing addiction.
Hmm, I can’t seem to recall clinching the perfect result, cause sadly, friend, perfectness is non-existent.
“The availability of many "free" freelance photographers (may not be professional) in the market also drive the cost of hiring a photographer down.”
I don’t see why freelance photographers want to offer free services for the rest of their lives and I don’t see how this will decrease the cost of hiring a photographer. Perhaps, you thought with higher quantity of supply, price of supply will drop since everyone will be waging price wars and slash down prices of their services. This is theoretically correct to a limited extent but
we have to note the elasticity of the demand and supply factors.
Do people trust or want free freelance photographer for their lavish weddings and ministrial affairs?Maybe we should hire free freelance photographers for the upcoming F1! Is the hoard of supplies superior enough to influence a change in taste and preferences?
Customer sovereignty/loyalty is essential in business. If you have established a reputable position in the business, I don’t see how these incumbents will deter you from making profits. More so, setting the price based on the quality results you produced is the right thing to do. I also believe in the notion of luck. Sometimes if you don’t get scouted or be exposed, you don’t get the deal. Getting into the scene means you have to prove yourself over and over again. Top-notch magazines and publications won’t hire a Tom, Dick & Harry just because they offer free services. Just because you are a decent looking model who offers free runway services does not mean Vera Wang would want you to model her outfit.
“Will it become only a hobby in the future or will there still be room for the market of professional photographers to grow?”
I don’t understand why you question if photography has the probability to be purely a hobby after you rant on how everyone is going or have the potential to be professional someday. If services are rendered whether free or not, I personally would not see that as a hobby. I find it virtually impossible for photography to revert back to being just a hobby. Photography is a form of hobby, but it is not just confined to being a hobby. Think photojournalists, reporters and forensics! There is a room for everything, so there will definitely be one vast space for professional photographers to stretch their horizons.
Okay, thats fun! Just dropping my 72 cents!
Last edited:
I just chose exposures as that is one of the more common mistakes or errors made depending on how you view the photos. I understand that designs and the creativity part can never be replaced with technology but technology can make it easier to acheive the end-product. With this ease of creating quality photos, what will the future become? Are photographers really needed if anyone can do their job?
Are you sure 'anyone' can do their job? :dunno: Do you think its that easy as in just pressing the shutter? I have seen wannabe photographers come and go. Please have some sense of perspective.
Wow... What a nice and long reply!! In general, I just feel that photography may have a very bleak future due to technology advancement. Professional photographers will be redundant as anyone can do their job. Even if camera's are not that up to date, photoshop can do the rest that is if you have the skill. Photo editing softwares may reach a point where you do not even have to have the skills. You state that professional photographers in jobs such as reporters,etc. My point here is that they are not needed as cameras can do the what they can do.
I agree with you on this point. Its hard to make a comparison now as what i am indicating is technology in the future with unknown powers. Having the eye is surely an advantage, a indication that you are a photography, but is that all? Please enlighten me.
A badly taken photo is a badly taken photo. Technology doesn't make it any easier to turn a bad photo good. If a photographer can be replaced with technology, he/she is not a photographer to begin with.
and if you would for 1 min take technology out of the equation and look back at the works of photographers of the previous century, you'd amazed at what lesser technology can do. Its up to you. You can either let technology run you over or you can gain control to use it to your advantage.
Then I suggest you find out what a professional photographer actually does before blabbering away, you are just doing yourself a disservice. If you were to take photos for a living, it is essentially a business to manage as well. To manage a successful business, you need a whole range of skills, not just photography skills and certainly not technology alone.
- Status
Similar threads
