Is new digital technology rendering photographers obsolete?


Status
Not open for further replies.

de_stan

New Member
Apr 21, 2004
281
0
0
#1
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? :think:
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#2
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. :)
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#3
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.
 

ndroo

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 22, 2003
8,243
3
0
47
www.fuzzyeyeballs.com
www.fuzzyeyeballs.com
#4
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?

:bsmilie:
 

Clown

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 24, 2003
3,780
1
38
Singapore
#5
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.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#6
Clown said:
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 :(
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,857
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#7
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.... :rolleyes:

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. :)
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#8
nightwolf75 said:
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.... :rolleyes:
Don't like that leh, I very stressful leh:sweat:
 

sillyme

New Member
Sep 27, 2003
149
0
0
43
Potong Pasir
#9
"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
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
#10
dslr will still produce better pictures..hehe
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#11
I have taken a wedding with a prosumer b4, but was held back by the equipment.
espn infect the prosumers with your virus. :)
 

whoelse

Senior Member
Oct 17, 2003
1,228
0
36
#12
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/articles/fallfashion/richardson1.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/articles/default.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/photo/essays/vanRiper/010706.htm
http://www.davidburnett.com/
 

Dec 13, 2004
246
0
0
41
!
#13
Its not the camera, its the photographer that creatively captures that moment.
 

arttl

New Member
Jul 20, 2004
1,365
0
0
37
Planet PJ
www.flickr.com
#14
Thanks for the websites.

It's :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: .

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

Enjoy photography to the fullest.

Cheers! :)
 

singscott

New Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,835
0
0
www.whltelightphotographer.com
#16
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 " ;p
 

de_stan

New Member
Apr 21, 2004
281
0
0
#17
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?
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#19
de_stan said:
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? :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? :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom