Doom and Photography ...

[Ko.Fe.]

hm am I the only one who didn't finish the article ?

I can't, due to my ESL, I guess.
So, I google it, appears to be well known "news" about cameras sales decline. Surprise? Not for me.


90+ % of regular folks never needs 500mm focal length, 10 fps burst more and 45 points AF, FF RFs and 0.95 aperture.

DSLRs went popular because they became more affordable in last few years. Now where are huge numbers of fine used DSLRs and lenses, same like SLR market.
How many photographers are buying new SLRs? They are still available, check B&H.
I see absolutely no reason to buy DSLR new. My first and last new consumer level DSLR was purchased new in 2009 and I was told to buy DSLR used by this time already. In 2010 I purchased FF DLSR made in 2008 and it gives better pictures comparing to newer one. By September 2013 I still have same DSLRs and absolutely no plans to change them.
Here is one "secret" - DSLRs build to last very long time. Seven even ten years is no problem. Only gearheads needs them more often or few weddings photographers, who could kill shutter earlier (in theory).

Mirrorless, (micro) four thirds systems are not selling anymore as fast as then it was new?
No doubt. It was marketing thing, small body and lens comparing to DSLR. But 90+% of those little cameras are too small, too cumbersome to operate. Plus, to get best IQ from them it must be in RAW, same as with DSLRs.
How many of regular consumers are going to use RAW images to process them? Not so many.
I was ready (financially) for x20, walked in at Henry's, they had it in the stock, but it was before official "for sale" release date. I was ready to buy it on this day, but I was told to wait another two weeks or so.
So I wait little longer, checked pictures from it and they are not in IQ range I'll accept.
Plus, comparing to DLSR, small advanced cameras have way too many mechanical and other issues. Every time I google new mirrorless, 4/3 camera I'm interested in, it appears to have issues. Like aperture blades not opening, AF motor noise, RAW conversion quirks, AF is too slow and so on...

Regular people are still the same as they were in thirties, fifties and eighties. Pictures were taken in simple way, developed and printed elsewhere for sharing and kept in photo albums. Now with smartphones pictures are taken instantly and delivered to the social media right away for sharing, and kept on PC and "clouds".
Plus all of those HDR and Photoshops heavy edited pictures getting less popular because with smartphones we could get instant effects, like Instagram, for example.

DSLRs and advanced compacts are giving functionalities, which most consumers don't really needs. Because people are still the same with same interests for taking of the picture.
"I was here", "we went here", "my cute kid eating boogers" and so on.
Only few have desire to chaise moose and airplanes or take it with macro.

Here is no doom of photography, in terms of picture taking it is blooming.
It just going back to normal. Few photogs with advanced technology and most and more and more of the general population is clicking away easiest possible way.

This Friday style picture was instantly taken and automatically processed by three years old phone and free app on it.

Cheers!

 

[Pioneer]

Lots of reasons for the decline in the sale of traditional style digital cameras. IMHO this is the biggest one.

I was at the first day of school just the other day to watch my little granddaughter on her first day of kindergarten. There were about 35 or 40 people there, most of them taking pictures. I was the only one with a camera (a film rangefinder BTW), everyone else was using their smartphone! All of these people were perfectly content to commit their family memories of their children's first day of school to a smartphone.

 

[stompyq]

Lots of reasons for the decline in the sale of traditional style digital cameras. IMHO this is the biggest one.

I was at the first day of school just the other day to watch my little granddaughter on her first day of kindergarten. There were about 35 or 40 people there, most of them taking pictures. I was the only one with a camera (a film rangefinder BTW), everyone else was using their smartphone! All of these people were perfectly content to commit their family memories of their children's first day of school to a smartphone.

Which I find amazing considering that those images will be posted to facebook and then live on those phones never to be printed.

 

[__--]

No. It was basically alarmist drivel...

Not alarmist drive at alll. What Kirk Tuck essentially means that the camera market is back to the low-growth scenario that the film-camera market was before the digetal camera explosion, which was typical of a mature market. That doesn't mean future dramatic changes in technology could not cause a similar explosion in the future and high market growth in the future.

The other signifcance, as well stated in the article, is the explosion in internet discussion and amateur photogarphy activity stemming from the chase for the moving-target holy grails that Kirk Tuck describes. I think he is spot-on about that, and about the phrenetic interaction on photography sites and forums, that he describes have also lost steam, which explains why LUF and RFF are so boring these days. The photographers who have been chasing the technical holy grails that he describes are not suddenly going to become great photographers or artists, but we knew that already — didn't we?

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[jsrockit]

All of these people were perfectly content to commit their family memories of their children's first day of school to a smartphone.

A lot better than the typical 110, Disc, or 126 output back in the day... from a clarity and color standpoint.

 

[__--]

As Murchu said, saturation. Yes, camera sales are down. It ain't the end of the world, or of photography. Look at the language in this post, though: "I...I...I", "cataclysmic", "tipping point", parallels with overpriced coffee -- all the hallmarks of someone who thinks they're quite a bit cleverer than they are.

Of course we all think that, but some of us are better at disguising it than others. To me, not even attempting to disguise intellectual superiority is one of the hallmarks of drivel. Especially when the intellectual superiority is non-existent...

Sorry, Roger, here you come across as the pot calling the kettle black: both in the original "alarmist drivel" statement and in the post just quoted. No need for all this ad hominum here, when he has stated enough substance for thoughtful discussion.

—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[jsrockit]

It seems some take any article posted on RFF simply as an opportunity to make sure you know they are smarter than the article's writer. I didn't think the matter was so serious.

 

[Pioneer]

A lot better than the typical 110, Disc, or 126 output back in the day... from a clarity and color standpoint.

Oh I agree. And if they had prints made, even just 4x6 prints, those memories will probably last. Maybe I am wrong, maybe most of them will do this. But based on my own admittedly small sample, most don't bother. Facebook is just fine, or a quick text to friends.

Ah well, as has already been said, this is just the extension of most people's behavior ever since George Eastman began selling his little Kodak camera over 100 years ago. He was right. Image quality is secondary, just make it so simple anyone can do it.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Interesting read, though he took a slightly long way to make his point. Actually I think and even hope there is a great deal of truth in that article. Just a few days before I saw this, I shared a similar (but quite more concise) thought on pretty much the same.. (There was a time). But that's not only something we see in photography, is it?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Sorry, Roger, here you come across as the pot calling the kettle black: both in the original "alarmist drive" statement and in the post just quoted. No need for all this ad hominum here, when he has stated enough substance for thoughtful discussion.

I'm not sure where you find an ad hominem attack in what Roger wrote. It was a comment on how the writing appears, rather than about the person who wrote it; a comment I tend to agree with.

For what little my opinion is worth, I skimmed it and retired bored. It was very much the sort of writing that "never uses two or three words when a couple of thousand will easily do".

 

[__--]

Oh I agree. And if they had prints made, even just 4x6 prints, those memories will probably last. Maybe I am wrong, maybe most of them will do this. But based on my own admittedly small sample, most don't bother. Facebook is just fine, or a quick text to friends...

I think that you're right that these photos will never be printed. But we're in a new age without family photo albums: people simply look at pictures on their smart phones, computers and sometimes put them up on their TV screens. Will they keep them for posterity. My feeling is that they will and the proportion will eventually be similar to that of people who carefully kept photo albums or old family photographs, which is to say a minority because the bulk of photo albums and old family pictures ended up in attics and cellars and were eventually lost — so there might not be a big change in this.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[__--]

I'm not sure where you find an ad hominem attack in what Roger wrote. It was a comment on how the writing appears, rather than about the person who wrote it; a comment I tend to agree with.

For what little my opinion is worth, I skimmed it and retired bored. It was very much the sort of writing that "never uses two or three words when a couple of thousand will easily do".

You're right, I should have stuck to "supercilious." On the writer's style, doesn't frazzle me as I was interested in the substance of what he wrote.

—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[dabick42]

If Kirk Tuck should ever resort to using a concise, coherent, free-flowing style of reportage that I can actually read without suffering mental indigestion, I would be more than happy, as I suspect that he might have something interesting to impart.
To date, alas, I've never managed to penetrate beyond a paragraph or two before the discomfort became too much to bear...

 

[Roger Hicks]

You're right, I should have stuck to "supercilious." On the writer's style, doesn't frazzle me as I was interested in the substance of what he wrote.

—Mitch/Paris

Dear Mitch,

Yes, I'll put my hand up to "supercilious".

The style does "frazzle" me as it was a poorly written statement of the bleedin' obvious.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you guys by posting this horrible article. It won't happen again.

 

[RedLion]

The Photocalypse

The Photocalypse

We're in the photocalypse, not so much because of technical improvement of the cameras or the encroachment of smart phones on the P&S cameras, but because of the FLOOD of images coming at us from all vectors.

From a blog comment I wrote:
"With the ubiquity of digital photography and the constant tsunami of images flooding us, the balance of power has shifted from the individual artist-creator to the curator-critic. And yet (and this is the paradox) at the same time the MYTH of the individual artist-creator has become stronger than ever. This mythology has become virtual and infinitely mutable, and all someone has to do in order to enter into participation-mystique with the gods and goddesses of this new mythology is to get a camera. With this magical item, anyone can now cross over the threshold into the special world of the artist-creator. [But] it is the critic-curator who bestows recognition."


It's these critic-curators who establish the exemplars or archetypes of different genres, styles, and categories of photography for others to follow, emulate or riff off of. It is the critic-curator who will enforce the emerging grammar of the alphabet and language of the IMAGE.

What then is left for the amateur or enthusiast photographer? If the gear-race method for public acknowledgement is over, then the game becomes all about the process and the content.

The process: How one creates. personal style, technique, philosophy, etc.. Photography as expression of one's personal lifestyle and dress. Photography as a psychological-spiritual process of self-discovery. The artist them-self as the product or work of art. Alchemy.

The Content: The Images themselves. Are they superlative examples of established standards of technical competency, beauty, and societal values, OR do they push the envelope in ways which garner recognition? The hyper-competition to stand out from the crowd. What new forms of photographic art will emerge from this epic Darwinian struggle?

Joe

 

[stompyq]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you guys by posting this horrible article. It won't happen again.

I actually liked the article. Hmm.... wait I used the letter I there in my sentence. My apologies

Drat there I go again....

 

[Pioneer]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you guys by posting this horrible article. It won't happen again.

(PSSST I actually enjoyed reading it. But then I actually enjoy reading some of Roger's stuff as well, so that gives you some insight into my taste. 🙂 )

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you guys by posting this horrible article. It won't happen again.

Don't say that. I for one am opposed to shooting the messenger, if only on the grounds that I may not get that cheque, which is allegedly in the post. Next thing you find may resonate with me, even if it bores the people that liked this one.

 

[Chris101]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you guys by posting this horrible article. It won't happen again.

The article was a bit of a slog, but your title for the thread rocked!