Changes...

Photowallah said

how photography is perceived and valued (or not)…

That comment strikes a chord with me. I'm afraid the medium was massively de-valued by the "digital revolution"; to the point where today "AI" threatens near extinction.

The days are long gone when anyone believed "the camera never lies".

The prospects of ever seeing your work in meaningful print (by "meaningful" I mean in a non-self published book or mainstream print magazine) are now close to zero unless you have some very useful friends.

There are still niches (e.g. babies and weddings) where the thick-skinned can earn a crust or two. But people have never been less inclined to pay a professional photographer to shoot something for them - "everyone's a photographer" now.

I've been following the war in Ukraine fairly closely and have noted the paucity of powerful still images coming back from the lines - today's reportage is remarkable, but all video-based.

It's had its day as far as I'm concerned, now purely a hobby.

I've no doubt some will cry "rubbish" and point to all the opportunities for web-based publication and sales - well, good luck to you; it has no meaning for me.

This is where I am...

By digital revolution, to me, I don't think it was the digital change in equipment, per se, but the whole social media revolution and how the user of photography (advertising and marketing, for instance) changed hand in hand with that... and, consequently, how it was valued... It has led us to the same place we are and I think we both see it in a similar light... A societal change...

There was a rolling change.. From around 2008/9/10 on.. I hung on (my commercial work was not what I do on here) for a lot longer than others but even by "old school" type client thinking had changed by the time I moved on... and, now, as you say, most clients do not have the budget to make photography as a profession do-able... You need to be a "more than"... a content creator, maybe, but for whom, and at what cost, and what return...

Niche markets like wedding photography etc are starting to change, also...

There are probably more "photographers" making pictures now than ever before, yet there is probbaly no more quality work out there than there was before... I appreciate to some extent that "quality" means different things to different people, but we are just not surrounded by the quality of photography as we once were... It is now something that is "to a budget" and a tick box... "have we got a photographer" is never followed by "but are they any good"...

AI will kill off 90% of photography outlets now as brands move marketing etc to AI generated content where they easily control the rights... Fake or otherwise...

As for it becoming now a hobby... I agree, I shoot for fun alone now, when I can... I say "when I can" because another change is that there are fewer folk out there who seeming want to make pictures for the art and craft of making the pictures... But I think that is another facet of the digital revolution as regards content creation... But that's all good... I'm not moaning, you cannot stop the tide... Just being realistic...

JPea said

The massive change for me is in the processing.

"Wet" developing and printing, particularly colour was for me a total pain in the neck. The ability to sit and take my time and not be subjected to unpleasant chemicals and associated smells, that I can now enjoy with digital has totally transformed the pleasure I get from photography,

A smaller bonus is with small lightweight cameras where you see the end photograph on the back of the camera.

Joy....bliss.

I avoided colour... Fortunately, I would shoot negs or transparencies that were scanned by the time colour was mainly used and my work was being used more quickly than it was originally... I held on to B&W for many years... But all that kit is still in the box I put it in back in 1993 hahaha...

I do still apply many darkroom techniques in my workflow, however, when "editing"...

Wise Old Dragon said

The way the industry works and I am not sure its for the better or worse but there seems to be a lot less TFP around these days.

I think when I started out Cameras on phones were very new and not every phone had them, models had no choice but to do TFP shoots to build a portfolio.

Now they can get very good images taken by friends and whilst they may not match the quality of some of the images on PP, they can still have a technically decent portfolio and start charging right away.

I think that is a very realistic and fair observation...

People who need folio work don't now need the professional photographers to do that for them...

Yes, the shots might not be the same quality (and each to their own on that observation), but nobody is really looking closely, or interested, and I can bet most people don't see an improvement in work if they get better folio shots these days...Like you say, folk can start earning quickly without a professionally shot "book"... Not being snobbish, it's just a fact/observation..

Also, the response/engagement on a lot of the media channels nowadays tends to react better to stuff that appears self-shot or less professional... Like there is a whole market reset going on... Look at fashion brands... the photography they use now is not what it once was (IMHO, of course)...

So the only people now looking for TF are people who particularly want to work with you on a "for the art and craft of it" basis...

I think what we might be lacking is that space for those people who want that to network... I have no desire to annoy anybody by reaching out suggesting TF (and I do not, if they say "for pay only" or otherwise make that clear in their bio)... But I do want to put myself in the shop window for folk who want to collaborate.. and I'm never going to use something like Instagram for that kind of discussion...

I used to buy every book going on photography, particularly the professional editing techniques using Photoshop and Lightroom. Now it's all on YouTube.

I’ll be honest—I'm completely burnt out on Photoshop and digital photography. The biggest shift for me, though, is just how ‘easy’ photography has become.

Lately, I’ve been diving back into film and spending time in the darkroom, relearning those old-school techniques, and what’s really struck me is how much more challenging it all used to be. Everything from nailing the exposure to the process of pre-visualizing the final image required real care and attention. You couldn’t rely on post-processing to save a shot—you had to get it right in-camera.

Before the days of Photoshop and shooting RAW, photography had a certain unpredictability. There was no “undo” button or endless adjustments to perfect an image. It required a different kind of skill, patience, and focus.

Everything has changed for the better, cameras, lenses and in particular lighting all now do what I want and I can shoot stills and video with almost everything I have, without having to change everything. It is also cheaper!

All the silos that existed before are being blown out the water - at it's most basic, shooting stills and video as one idea with the same lighting.

I can now carry what I want very easily on a climbing trip and the gear has stopped being the thing that determines how far and what I can achieve

The world of cinema and TV has changed and improved in technique, story and art no end and that is an invaluable inspiration to me.

I see endless possibilities way beyond old school snapping. Everywhere you look, someone has developed something specific to suit a niche, you can buy almost anything now. Before hand you were stuck with a few very clunky and un adaptable products, that were tried and tested for the formula but useless for doing anything different

Funny enough, I now don't use auto focus lenses because I don't need them anymore and instead use focus peaking with specialist manual focus lenses. I still use graduated filters and ND filters

I also have no need to develop mobile phone use - that is relegated to making calls and the odd email. It is redundant as a camera

Edited by Gerry99111

Digital photography is commodified to everyone's benefit. Cameras, lenses, mounts, video formats, lighting, software, radio triggers, scanners, copying equipment, printers. And it aligns with commodification in a huge number of other areas -- home fabrication equipment, microcontrollers, short run manufacturing.

Want to take a photograph with a full frame digital camera using a medium format lens, then make a cyanotype print of it, at night? You can, and cheaply. Want to use tilt-shift on an APS-C camera with an enlarger lens, stack a hundred exposures and merge them in software? You can, and cheaply.

Want to shoot transparency film on your precise, home-CNC'd, home-3D-printed DIY 5x4" camera, using a vintage lens, scan the images and remove the dust in photoshop? You can, and even this you can do cheaply compared to the cost of high-end kit.

Experimentation, adaptation, customisation.

The post-DSLR era is like the early years of photography, only with excellent equipment. 

Photography as a business: almost dead. Photography as an artistic medium? Just waking up again.

I shot at a festival the other week with my mobile phone. But also with a secondhand mirrorless camera, an off-the-shelf M42 helicoid, a bespoke, home-made, perfect-length M42-M39 extension tube and a £35 enlarger lens. 

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Technically much much easier.

Producing something special….   Much much harder.

Changes... Models are more focused on money in general. Photographers are getting older. Attitudes and respects are mostly copycat. Quality and class are hard to find. Restrictions, finances and creativity is drying out. It might be an original idea to photograph change? Lol.... Oops it's being done!...

Everyone is a photographer these days with the invent of mobile devices and the Internet which in some way as devalued the skill of an actual photographer making it harder to earn a living.

Back in the days of film, you had one shot at getting it right and you had to get it right in camera because there was vèy little in the way of retouching and processing/film cost a small fortune. There was a lot of skill involved.

With modern technology, you can afford to take 20 almost identical images because it's all digitalised, the cost is minimal and so is storage of the image as its digitalised. And it doesn't matter if you don't get it so right in camera be cause you now have editing tools to correct and ehance.

The 'modern day' photographer doesn't just take an image, they are now somewhat of a retoucher in terms of the edit that is applied to the images and so much so that some photographer are now considered digital artists.

I think photography in it purest form has changed dramatically and will only keep evolving as technology does.

Something that is coming through these posts is how difficult the basic process of taking a photograph used to be pre-digital.

Yes, very much so.

However, taking an interesting, creative image is just as difficult as it ever was.

I have seen some woderful images taken on Box Brownies and some, many, many many digital images that are dreadful.

The technique really doesn't matter, the eye at the back of the camera does.

Just reading through the latest comments and it seems we do have some interesting points and counter points being made… all valid, of course… and interesting…

Picking up on a few of them…

I’m not sure I agree that film and TV are improved today because of the changes in technology and (let’s face it) societal norms and expectations… Different, yes, for sure.. But improved (I mean, there, in a sense of “better”)…? I’d suggest we don’t make drama like we used to for TV and that drama now isn’t as good… But it is subjective… and certainly we don’t have the budgets we used to… and Film/Movies the same… Yes, folk still make good work, but much of what I think of as good work is actually more old school film making… Mostly without CGI…

I was watching, last night, something from 1978 that looks quite drab compared to drama that is made now, but, in 78, it was genuinely groundbreaking and genre changing… Well written and made… and is still hugely entertaining to watch today… Not sure we truly make groundbreaking work these days and I cannot think of many shows I have seen in the last ten/twenty years or so that I will watch again (the exception, for me, being Shane Meadows’ work)… “Our Friends in the North” is coming up to 30 years old now and I’m not sure we will ever see the like again in Drama… Not in scope or execution… A whole year’s drama budget spent on one show… I still rewatch that every couple of years or so and still find things in it to love… My twitter feed was filled with positive comments the other night for “Get Carter”, a film made on 70/71 and shown again on the BBC the other night…

I’ll also counter that I don’t think making pictures was harder before digital, nor that there was not great variety or possibilities… I’m genuinely not sure I have seen a digital photograph that I had not seen done well before digital… Of course, we can discuss “when is a photograph not a photograph”… but, fundamentally, the building blocks of making pictures didn’t change, just the tools… also. It’s a myth to think pre-digital was all out of camera because it wasn’t… If you have ever seen the side by side picture of that famous Bob Dylan print with the test print marked up for how the printer was to make the finished print then you will appreciate how much went into making finished prints for publication…

I think a lot of shooters who transitioned to digital from (say) shooting transparencies were well prepared and actually have carried much of those skills through to today… Early digital was like shooting transparencies in that is had a narrow latitude… and, yes, whilst modern equipment has more latitude and ability to post correct, many of us don’t shoot that way… But stuff like seeing the light in your compositions, getting exposures right, is all craft, right… the crafts we use to do our jobs… I still know many pros who don’t shoot RAW… They shoot hi res jpeg like transparencies… and they can benefit from a speedier and streamlined workflow accordingly… there’s a lot to say for this, especially if you know what you are doing and can set up the camera well…

I accept that modern tools are more versatile, but most things you can think of wanting were done pre-dig… We still, today, reference early/mid century photography in many fields as the reference points (landscape, documentary etc)… and a little later for some other fields (fashion, maybe)…

But, yes, being able to consolidate kit and be more versatile with it can only be a good thing… Less equipment to carry about…

I don’t think photography is any easier now. Sure, there are different tools with different capabilities, but you can, and always could, teach/learn all the craft you’d ever need/want… What you could never really learn was “the eye”, which, to me, some have and some don’t, and I don’t think that has changed… I think we see a lot more “average” work out there now simply because the modern world allows us to share it in a way that we could not before…

I do think, however, that a downside to this is that it has diluted the “average” (so to speak) and so many folk are not “trained” into seeing decent work as much, any more, because there is (statistically) less of it about…

I feel, overall, that it is the photograph itself that has been devalued in recent times… I don’t think it is that many folk cannot really see a good picture from a bad one (it’s all relative, anyway) just that there has been less emphasis for many years now on using decent imagery and so we have, consequently, been around and seen less of it… So it has been devalued…

You could of course just accept that you can do things differently now or you can do things just like they were 20 years ago as all the technology exists or you can learn how to use the modern stuff in a way to mimick previous equipment.

Most of the stuff that existed 20 years ago still exists. You can enjoy both that and the modern stuff if you want.

What you absolutely cannot do is expect other people to produce stuff to suit your tastes.

I love all cinema and have some films approaching 100 years ago all the way to this year.

What has changed more than the technology that is pretty awe inspiring is a lot of the old formula's have been ditch and there is far more twists and turns. The stuff from the last 10 years is a league apart from previous generations in all aspects both in quantity and quality. But if you can't see thar, then you have 100 years of cinema that others have produced.

What you are missing is nothing is being replaced, it is being added to.

If you don't like it then the chances are you are in a minority or have developed age related blinkers.

When someone claims things have got worse, they usually mean they have lost the ability to be part of a select group because the technical barriers to more create people have been removed.

It's a free world, just.

I personally think nearly all the supposedly top level photography from previous generations has little to draw me back to. All this talk of devaluing is because the monopoly has gone for the average jobbing pro and the best have lost their very highly paid shoots but that has nothing to do with the quality

Gerry99111 said

I personally think nearly all the supposedly top level photography from previous generations has little to draw me back to. All this talk of devaluing is because the monopoly has gone for the average jobbing pro and the best have lost their very highly paid shoots but that has nothing to do with the quality

Absolutely correct. Photographers cannot coast along relying on the high barrier of the cost of entry, and yet they repeatedly do, despite obvious lessons of photographic history during the time of their own careers. 

Nowhere is this more clear than the wedding market, where the high barrier of the cost of entry has been knocked down several times as something new changes the market: 35mm, high quality automatic colour labs, autofocus, reportage style, videography, cheap SLRs, digital SLRs, women photographers pushing back against ingrained sexism and going for the bigger jobs, now hybrid stills/video cameras and the associated hybrid work, massive improvements in flash, LED. Each time there's a whole tier of not-very-good-photographers (for clarity I don't mean anyone in this thread) who will complain about devaluation or about things being made too easy so photographers don't need to learn stuff.

(Obviously people don't *need* to learn as much to use newer kit. But I don't really know how to wash my clothes with a laundry stone or a mangle, and I'd screw it up the first few dozen times if I did. People don't need to know how their cars work, But the less people need to learn generally, the more pronounced the niches and benefits where the learning can't be avoided.)

It obviously also applies to interactions here. Models haven't become "more focussed" on money. It's just that proportionately more of the transactions here and on sites like this are about paid work, because for all the reasons above plus camera phones, models don't by and large need humdrum home studio TFP. If they need it at all, they're doing that themselves. 

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

JuninhoPhoto said

I do think, however, that a downside to this is that it has diluted the “average” (so to speak) and so many folk are not “trained” into seeing decent work as much, any more, because there is (statistically) less of it about…

On this point I must disagree. The average working photographer is surely producing better work than the average 1990s working photographer (it's just that the field has been decimated many times over).

And it's abundantly clear that -- taking a wider view than Purpleport, at least -- at the amateur level, average quality improves, as does casual non-photographer visual literacy and awareness of photography as an art form.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike