Those cameras were replaced with another form of image-making gizmo, cellphones. Last year, about 1.5 billion were sold. There have never been more images taken.
Is Technology Killing Photography?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Those cameras were replaced with another form of image-making gizmo, cellphones. Last year, about 1.5 billion were sold. There have never been more images taken.
Just for fun, in 2010 there were global purchases of 296 million smartphones - all of which had cameras. Over the 10 year period from 2014 to 2023 there have been 1.2-1.5 Billion smartphones sold per year. Camera sales are up dramatically - and stand alone cameras with interchangeable lenses are a rounding error.
I had a paid shoot yesterday. For stills I had a Z8 and a Z6. The video guy had a Canon 90D and an iPhone 15. About half of his video was with his smartphone - mainly B-roll but paid work just the same.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
It seems weird that a painter can use various pigment mediums applied to various canvas mediums, a printmaker can create an image from several registered plates, and a sculptor can can coax whatever image they want from stone. But when you're working with a "film plane", the rules are stupid, simple and restricted or it's no longer "photography".
Well fine, just call me an artist then.
Chris
Is technology killing photography? No
Is technology killing my bank account?
Is technology killing my bank account?
jim0379
Active member
I think there are a couple of nuances about how the members on this forum use the technology that are hiding in plain sight. We've all dedicated time and effort to master the technology in pursuit of getting better images. We've discussed among ourselves the optimal ways to re-program function buttons and settings banks so that the device in our hands does more or less exactly what we want it to do. That's not nothing.
My contention is that the next 100 times that a photographyer with a modern mirrorless or DSLR and a wildlife prime lens on a tripod gets asked "Do ya get good shots with that rig?" by a curious tourist, the photographer could say, "Sure, give it a try!" and not once would the tourist replicate what the photographer was capturing. "this doesn't focus when I press the shutter 1/2 way down...."
Just like the golf clubs that Tiger Woods uses are more technologically advanced than the ones Sam Snead played with, you could hand them to a random golfer and be unlikely to get Woods-quallty golf.
After Arnold Palmer won a tournament by chipping into the hole from off the green, a reporter in the clubhouse asked after the round, "And wasn't it lucky you chipped in?". Arnold answered, "I've noticed that the more I practice, the luckier I get."
I think Steve's point is that photography is an art AND a craft, so mastering the tools, even as they morph and change in very dynamic ways, is the basic threshold to accomplishment.
My contention is that the next 100 times that a photographyer with a modern mirrorless or DSLR and a wildlife prime lens on a tripod gets asked "Do ya get good shots with that rig?" by a curious tourist, the photographer could say, "Sure, give it a try!" and not once would the tourist replicate what the photographer was capturing. "this doesn't focus when I press the shutter 1/2 way down...."
Just like the golf clubs that Tiger Woods uses are more technologically advanced than the ones Sam Snead played with, you could hand them to a random golfer and be unlikely to get Woods-quallty golf.
After Arnold Palmer won a tournament by chipping into the hole from off the green, a reporter in the clubhouse asked after the round, "And wasn't it lucky you chipped in?". Arnold answered, "I've noticed that the more I practice, the luckier I get."
I think Steve's point is that photography is an art AND a craft, so mastering the tools, even as they morph and change in very dynamic ways, is the basic threshold to accomplishment.
jfredrick
Well-known member
I enjoyed your video Steve and agree!
Technology is opening up a wide range of Photography and Video abilities to the masses. Just look at what can be taken on your cell phone! I would say that Technology is not killing Photography but in many ways it is reducing or “killing” the need for a Professional Photographer. Now most anyone can capture great images (using afordable cameras and processing software) with ease and share them around the globe nearly instantly!
Technology is opening up a wide range of Photography and Video abilities to the masses. Just look at what can be taken on your cell phone! I would say that Technology is not killing Photography but in many ways it is reducing or “killing” the need for a Professional Photographer. Now most anyone can capture great images (using afordable cameras and processing software) with ease and share them around the globe nearly instantly!
Last edited:
StefanSC
Well-known member
I do think Steve was talking in his video about Photography as the hobby/activity i.e: creating an image for that image sake, not about photography the means of communication, i.e: taking a picture of your cat doing funny faces and sharing it with your friends via Whatsapp (how 99.999% of those smartphones are actually used).
I know I was talking about Photography the hobby/activity
.
The average age of photo workshop participants is old. The average ethnicity is white. The average social class is professional-managerial. No surprises there. My wife and I regularly joke about how the end-of-workshop group photos are strikingly interchangeable.
"We" aging Boomers have the resources and time to go on far flung, expensive trips and buy state of the art gear. It is unfortunate that younger people for the most part cannot/do not join us. OTOH, if one is willing to put up with "yesterday's technology" one can presently put together a darned good wildlife rig for a comparative pittance, e.g. a used D500 plus a used Tamron or Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500 costs under $2000. Again, how many years ago would such gear have been "cutting edge" itself?
As I recall, Nikon made a dramatic attempt to capture the "youth market" some years ago with the Nikon 1 experiment. Ouch. They might be forgiven for not trying such a marketing move again.
"We" aging Boomers have the resources and time to go on far flung, expensive trips and buy state of the art gear. It is unfortunate that younger people for the most part cannot/do not join us. OTOH, if one is willing to put up with "yesterday's technology" one can presently put together a darned good wildlife rig for a comparative pittance, e.g. a used D500 plus a used Tamron or Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500 costs under $2000. Again, how many years ago would such gear have been "cutting edge" itself?
As I recall, Nikon made a dramatic attempt to capture the "youth market" some years ago with the Nikon 1 experiment. Ouch. They might be forgiven for not trying such a marketing move again.
I agree… Let’s put a finer point on what Steve is saying…
1. “Using technology to identify subjects”….. No, I know what I want when I look through the viewfinder, then focus, with A/F or the vintage rotating ring on the lens barrel. Landscape photography technology has “scene recognition” now.. seriously?
2. “Help with post processing”. Since I disposed of my enlarger and re-purposed a light-tight closet, I no longer have to “burn-in” or “dodge” parts of a photograph. RAW images and “masking” to the rescue in the digital world. Quid pro quo …..
3. ‘AI generated photos are outside the realm of regular photography“. Yes they are. But this matters only to a photographer. The VIEWER is drawn to an image, not the method of capture. Are AI generated photographs acceptable in a gallery? I don’t know
… Can you distinguish them apart? Does it matter?
I do think Steve was talking in his video about Photography as the hobby/activity i.e: creating an image for that image sake, not about photography the means of communication, i.e: taking a picture of your cat doing funny faces and sharing it with your friends via Whatsapp (how 99.999% of those smartphones are actually used).
I know I was talking about Photography the hobby/activity
Most of those 100 million cameras were point-and-shoots people used to take cute pictures of their cats making faces.
There hasn't seem ti have been any changes, but I don't run dozens of workshops each year, so it's a small data set.
Source of your statistics?
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
Me thinks you paint with way too broad a brush. You've probably heard of the shrinking/vanishing middle-class; I believe the assumption that all people of a certain age have those resources is unfounded (but please feel free to provide support for that claim). As for that last part, we must go to different places; yes, it's probably an older set making it to the expensive safari tours, but there are plenty of young people out there buying the gear, using it and making fantastic photography with it.
Chris
I, for one, love the new technology in cameras AND camera accessories. I have been shooting pictures for 68 years! I remember when a DSLR was the pinnacle of advancement in photography technology!
In younger days, I thought nothing of lying on my stomach or my back in the streets of New York (or whatever city I happened to be in) to get that interesting wide-angle shot of tall buildings coming together. Today, I could still lay down. Getting up, however, is a whole other story! The ability to flip-up a screen, and take a low angle picture, is therefore, a life-saver!
Film was expensive, and 36 (37 if you loaded in the dark, and got that one extra picture!) exposures was considered a huge advancement. Today we shoot off a 100 exposures looking for that one perfect shot. Something we could not even have dreamed of back then.
Vibration Reduction. As these older muscles and nerves get more tired, VR enables me to take pictures I otherwise would be unable to do without at least a monopod. Yet, one more thing to carry, and set up.
Spot-metering (in my first Pentax Spotmatic) was miraculous! What happens today with SPECIFIC eye detection, and 3D tracking handoffs makes that first technology look so ordinary in comparison.
And don’t even get me started on the technology of photography accessories! Pluto Triggers that enable capturing lightning storms, filters that fit INSIDE your camera for wide-angle ND work, or capturing IR images. I could go on and on…
So, no. I'm not at all threatened by technology. Every advancement simplifies what this aging body needs to do, to get that perfect shot. And yet, no technology can do better than that wonderful machine God created for us that Eye-Brain connection, which is the ultimate source of our incredible images.
In younger days, I thought nothing of lying on my stomach or my back in the streets of New York (or whatever city I happened to be in) to get that interesting wide-angle shot of tall buildings coming together. Today, I could still lay down. Getting up, however, is a whole other story! The ability to flip-up a screen, and take a low angle picture, is therefore, a life-saver!
Film was expensive, and 36 (37 if you loaded in the dark, and got that one extra picture!) exposures was considered a huge advancement. Today we shoot off a 100 exposures looking for that one perfect shot. Something we could not even have dreamed of back then.
Vibration Reduction. As these older muscles and nerves get more tired, VR enables me to take pictures I otherwise would be unable to do without at least a monopod. Yet, one more thing to carry, and set up.
Spot-metering (in my first Pentax Spotmatic) was miraculous! What happens today with SPECIFIC eye detection, and 3D tracking handoffs makes that first technology look so ordinary in comparison.
And don’t even get me started on the technology of photography accessories! Pluto Triggers that enable capturing lightning storms, filters that fit INSIDE your camera for wide-angle ND work, or capturing IR images. I could go on and on…
So, no. I'm not at all threatened by technology. Every advancement simplifies what this aging body needs to do, to get that perfect shot. And yet, no technology can do better than that wonderful machine God created for us that Eye-Brain connection, which is the ultimate source of our incredible images.
Last edited:
I understand the characterization of Boomers (although not all Boomers fir the mold), but I know lots of young people who are doing far more travelling that I ever did or will do. Many of them, however, will not be able to afford houses and/or cars due to income
rice changes over the years, but a lot of them are exploring the world, photographing it with their phones, and posting on all kinds of social media platforms.--Ken
Doomrider74
Well-known member
Another take: No one is forcing you to use all the technology: A Z8 can be used very simply, as can Lightroom.
Wow, a few people have "disagreed "with things I did not say. The question being addressed a bunch of comments ago was whether camera companies are introducing features and products with a wealthier buying clientele in mind. I suggest the answer is yes, since it is the people with money and leisure time who can buy leading edge gear and use it. I posited, based on having gone on a lot of photo tours (and birding tours) that the demographics of the "people with money and time who go on nature tours" tend towards older (includes post-Boomers by now, but 55 and up generally) and wealthier and yes, white and educated. I can't see that this is even controversial. And of course there are exceptions.
I did NOT say that all older people are wealthy. Far from it. Nor did I say that young people don't travel and don't take photos. But they pretty much don't go on the same organized photo tours that "we" do, and they don't buy $7000 cameras and $5000 lenses.
I will add, fwiw, that the trends in photography overall that we are discussing here (AI, etc) apply to all types of photography, not just just wildlife. Adobe is full steam ahead with "generative AI" and has posted ads suggesting that a camera is no longer needed to create wonderful images. This has made some photographers angry, I gather.
I did NOT say that all older people are wealthy. Far from it. Nor did I say that young people don't travel and don't take photos. But they pretty much don't go on the same organized photo tours that "we" do, and they don't buy $7000 cameras and $5000 lenses.
I will add, fwiw, that the trends in photography overall that we are discussing here (AI, etc) apply to all types of photography, not just just wildlife. Adobe is full steam ahead with "generative AI" and has posted ads suggesting that a camera is no longer needed to create wonderful images. This has made some photographers angry, I gather.
As someone who made money doing sports photography many years ago, my "frame rate" was based on how fast my thumb could move the film advance lever on my SLR. I'm happy to have the advances in tech we have, and just wish my budget was big enough to take advantage of it all.
I'm with Steve!
Well put!
Thank you!
Well put!
Thank you!
Milos
Member
If you are good photographer technology helps you take better pictures. If you are lousy photographer top of the line equipment will not help. I have seen this already during film days. Many guys who had the most expensive cameras could not take a good picture.
simonsi
Active member
Indeed - the recent video of Katy Perry at the Met Gala being literally good enough to fool her own mother is a case in point.
simonsi
Active member
Indeed. I suspect a 45mp with D700 features (ie basic functionality), may have a significant following but no manufacturer would likely find it commercially viable or risk acceptable.
EricKlees
Well-known member
Only when gear alone will make everyone get the same shots and that's never going to happen
Last edited:
RikWriter
Well-known member
I do this for fun, not money, and for me, the newer technology makes it more fun.