DSLR Popularity

[photo_chick]

I've been saying this for years, but photographers need to adjust their business models or else risk losing their shirts. Elsewhere, I've read complaints from photographers who have been losing business to the point where they have to switch careers. Part of this is due to external factors (oversaturated marketplace, amateurs undercutting prices), but a lot of these people face this problem because they have business models predicated upon the sales of prints. Relying on prints is no way to do business.

When my wife and I were looking for a wedding photographer a couple years ago in the Chicago-area (an oversaturated marketplace), we interviewed numerous photographers, the vast majority of whom would not give me raw files. Many would also not provide digital files, period. One even said something along the lines of, "the finished product [a photo book and slideshow] is her artistic vision."

I can understand the raw file thing (even though I don't agree with it), but no digital files? Are these people insane?!

Being a professional photographer is just as much about business acumen as it is about talent and quality of work. Many pros I've met don't seem to understand that.

The prevailing attitude I've encountered among professional wedding and portrait photographers is a "how dare you even presume to think you could edit the photos I take". Some of it's ego, but you also have a lot of pros out there now who don't have the chops to get the images right in camera and rely in editing to make the images passable so some of the attitude is fear. They go to great lengths to put it in their contract that you cannot make changes to the files, may not post here or there, may only print a certain way.... to the point where it's just silly.

I get not giving out RAW files. That's like giving out your negatives and it's not something I would see myself doing except in special situations. But I've never understood the reluctance when it comes to jpegs.

 

[havoc315]

The prevailing attitude I've encountered among professional wedding and portrait photographers is a "how dare you even presume to think you could edit the photos I take". Some of it's ego, but you also have a lot of pros out there now who don't have the chops to get the images right in camera and rely in editing to make the images passable so some of the attitude is fear. They go to great lengths to put it in their contract that you cannot make changes to the files, may not post here or there, may only print a certain way.... to the point where it's just silly.

To some degree, it may just be a defensiveness about protecting their intellectual property. As if they are trying to implement something they half-heard a lawyer say at some time. As if they would have some day been able to sell the photograph for thousands of dollars, had you not already splattered it over the web.
And some of it may also just be an old-fashioned attitude, equating all digital copies as "negatives." Holding on to the very old fashioned attitude of, "we make money from selling the prints."

 

[MolonLabe]

I think it's a different age.

The age of photographers selling prints only or a handful of shots is going to come to a close.

Somewhat we see it where you pay for a package and then prints/books to get the 'negatives' but it's the next step.

Flat fee and you get all images shot (with X number of pictures edited/enhanced) is knocking on the door.

It's 2012, unless someone is REALLY good, this notion of there being dozens of "artistic" photographers in a small (or even large) city is over.

Like the music industry had to accept selling songs online, yet another industry will have to adapt or go the way of the dinosaur.

This isn't to disparage the good or great photogs, the artistic eye of someone how shoots weddings regularly and knows when to be where ect. ect. can't be over/under stated, it's just pointing out reality.

Most people are going to look at the cost of a 'pro' and even on the cheaper end, they could take that money, buy a stellar camera, flashes, some studio lights/strobes, ect. ect and think... ***?!?! I don't even get all the pictures shot... whatever man, I'll have uncle jessie do it and buy the stuff myself, then use it again on the honeymoon ,

It is what it is. I just don't see most people getting married forking out the big bucks anymore, especially with the economy continuing to tank.

For example I know a lawyer who used one of my friends to do his wedding. 'You shoot my wedding, I give you free legal services if you ever need them'. My friend took some beautiful photos by the way, I'd have him cover my wedding (or vow renewal as the case would be) without hesitation. I think he's only shot two weddings FWIW.

In any case, as DSLRs become more prolific, like it or not (and I'm sure plenty of wedding photos will be subpar) the industry is going to have to adapt.

 

[DSLRuser]

The prevailing attitude I've encountered among professional wedding and portrait photographers is a "how dare you even presume to think you could edit the photos I take". .

It's old school thought. They are still living in the pre-digital age.

When I got married in 1995. We paid a studio $x.xx dollars for them to shoot. then we had a sitting and selected prints for our "album". Paid another $x.xx dollars for that. It wasn't cheap.

now, 18 years later. i still have this insanly high quality leather bound "album". But i don't have anything beyond that. i have no idea if the company retained my negatives or not. Assuming they did, I wonder what charges they would have for me to get an image. do they even still have the equipment?

point is, its not 1995 anymore. These new photographers need to understand the power is now in the hands of the consumer. photography has just eveolved. The successfull ones are the ones who are not so tight with the digital files and dont let their ego get i the way.

 

[photo_chick]

It's old school thought. They are still living in the pre-digital age.

When I got married in 1995. We paid a studio $x.xx dollars for them to shoot. then we had a sitting and selected prints for our "album". Paid another $x.xx dollars for that. It wasn't cheap.

now, 18 years later. i still have this insanly high quality leather bound "album". But i don't have anything beyond that. i have no idea if the company retained my negatives or not. Assuming they did, I wonder what charges they would have for me to get an image. do they even still have the equipment?

point is, its not 1995 anymore. These new photographers need to understand the power is now in the hands of the consumer. photography has just eveolved. The successfull ones are the ones who are not so tight with the digital files and dont let their ego get i the way.

It does seem to sound like it would be old school thought. But this attitude, that no one else can touch those precious files, from what I've seen is much stronger among the newer "digital only" photographers. The few professional photographers I personally know who've been shooting since film aren't as protective with jpegs.

I got married in '94 and I have 2 albums of images with no negatives as well. And the photographer used a lab so it's not like they did anything spectacular to the images in the darkroom or anything.

No doubt photography has evolved. It's a far different world than when I first picked up a camera, that's for sure.

 

[perdidochas]

I think that it's simply that dSLRs have become relatively affordable, with lots of amateur friendly features. Even for a total amateur on auto mode with a kit lens, the camera will have advantages over a point and shoot. Such as fast auto focus to keep up with children.

So it seems to me that a dSLR is on the list if must-have items for middle class/upper middle class families, along with broadband Internet, smart phones, etc.

The fast autofocus, and more importantly being able to take a picture instantly, vs. the lag most cheaper digital cameras have, are what gives the DSLR the advantage. The main disadvantage is size and expense.

 

[havoc315]

The fast autofocus, and more importantly being able to take a picture instantly, vs. the lag most cheaper digital cameras have, are what gives the DSLR the advantage. The main disadvantage is size and expense.

Agreed. And the expense is less and less of an issue. 10 years ago, a mediocre point and shoot digital camera could run $300. Now you can get a dSLR kit for under $500.
And some dSLRs have even gotten a fair bit smaller, though they are naturally still larger than P&S cameras.

So your complete photography layperson may be wasting the potential of a dSLR, but they are still getting some noticeable advantages over a P&S. On top of that, the prices have come down into the range of the casual camera user.

 

[perdidochas]

And that brings up another conundrum. What happens when social media sites and photo hosting sites go away? What happens when the media we've stored our images on becomes obsolete? What happens when the time comes when jpegs and RAW files are unreadable by future technology? By not making prints are we condemning our images to a limited existence? Then again prints don't last forever either so maybe it's all ephemeral on some level.

And now I'm way off topic. LOL

Digital media take a while to become obsolete. In general, people have time to go to the new medium. I doubt that jpeg and RAW files will ever be unreadable. The only real threat to losing images, IMHO, is in the case of a global nuclear war that takes out most electronics with EMP.

 

[perdidochas]

Agreed. And the expense is less and less of an issue. 10 years ago, a mediocre point and shoot digital camera could run $300. Now you can get a dSLR kit for under $500.
And some dSLRs have even gotten a fair bit smaller, though they are naturally still larger than P&S cameras.

So your complete photography layperson may be wasting the potential of a dSLR, but they are still getting some noticeable advantages over a P&S. On top of that, the prices have come down into the range of the casual camera user.

I'm just a little above complete photography layperson (I know enough to use the different programmed modes, such as choosing shutter speed or f-stop, and let the camera do the rest, as well as knowing how to turn off the flash ) I've found my Canon XS with kit lens has improved my photo quality over my P&S cameras. I wish photo snobs would just ignore the way the rest of us do things.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

It is what it is. I just don't see most people getting married forking out the big bucks anymore, especially with the economy continuing to tank.

I don't know about that. I'm a lurker of the Disney Weddings forum, and you'd be surprised how important photography and videography is to these brides - because when the day is over, all they really have to remember it by is photographs. Photography is something that many brides are willing to splurge on, and when Disney banned the use of outside photographers for Disney park weddings and receptions (outside photographers can be used at resort venues, but only Disney Events Photographers in the parks), brides were PO'd, many past brides confessing they never would have gotten married at WDW if they hadn't been able to choose their own photographer (Disney assigns their photographers at random. You can submit a request, but you aren't guaranteed, and you don't know until your big day - I could never live with that uncertainty). The change made many future brides switch their venue from inside the park to a resort location because they wanted a specific photographer.

The average wedding in America today is around $27,000. It's all relative, but that's enough to buy a new car (and not the cheapest on the lot at that), and doesn't seem like a small amount to me. I've also noticed that with this new push to not be "traditional" and have a more hipster, artsy wedding, photography is still something that brides choose to splurge on. It's how they get recognized - after the big day, with good photographs, they can continue to share their celebration, enter contests, be published on blogs, etc. Photography is ridiculously important in storytelling, and I think most brides know that.

Now, on the other side, last August, I was called the night before to shoot a good family friend's wedding. Note I'm not a professional photographer (though I do work for one doing post-processing and marketing), and I did this for no charge at all. But these two were very laid back about the wedding. The bride as sweet as can be and the anti-bridezilla. They had asked a friend with a DSLR to photograph the wedding, and at the last minute, he bailed. I treated the opportunity very seriously because I love weddings, and wedding photography is kind of a distant dream of mine. And in the end, they got more than they were ever looking for. I mean, they just wanted a few posed pictures of the family in their wedding attire, but I went around and photographed everything from the getting ready pictures to the going away car.

I think there are more brides that care a lot about their wedding day than brides that don't. But I don't think that professional wedding photography is going to become a lost art. If anything, I think it's grown exceptionally in the past year with blogs, pinterest, and other methods of online photosharing.

 

[havoc315]

I think there are more brides that care a lot about their wedding day than brides that don't. But I don't think that professional wedding photography is going to become a lost art. If anything, I think it's grown exceptionally in the past year with blogs, pinterest, and other methods of online photosharing.

I think you are correct in the sense that wedding photography is not in any immediate danger of going out of business.
But I think it becoming a luxury as opposed to being critical.

I'd compare it to live bands versus DJs. Couples certainly put a high value on the music at their wedding reception. But especially with the advent of digital music, DJs are just so much cheaper than live bands. Many couples that can afford it or that place a high enough priority on live music, still hire a band. But many also save some money by hiring a DJ.

I would venture to guess that if you looked at weddings 20 years ago, a higher percentage utilized professional photographer than do so today. And this effect trickles down to other types of events.
Where some people may have hired a professional even for more routine events -- office Christmas parties, family reunions, kid's birthday parties etc.... There is likely far less of that type of business for photographers today than 10, 20, 30 years ago.

 

[WDWFigment]

I think it's a different age.

The age of photographers selling prints only or a handful of shots is going to come to a close.

Somewhat we see it where you pay for a package and then prints/books to get the 'negatives' but it's the next step.

Flat fee and you get all images shot (with X number of pictures edited/enhanced) is knocking on the door.

It's 2012, unless someone is REALLY good, this notion of there being dozens of "artistic" photographers in a small (or even large) city is over.

Like the music industry had to accept selling songs online, yet another industry will have to adapt or go the way of the dinosaur.

This isn't to disparage the good or great photogs, the artistic eye of someone how shoots weddings regularly and knows when to be where ect. ect. can't be over/under stated, it's just pointing out reality.

Most people are going to look at the cost of a 'pro' and even on the cheaper end, they could take that money, buy a stellar camera, flashes, some studio lights/strobes, ect. ect and think... ***?!?! I don't even get all the pictures shot... whatever man, I'll have uncle jessie do it and buy the stuff myself, then use it again on the honeymoon ,

It is what it is. I just don't see most people getting married forking out the big bucks anymore, especially with the economy continuing to tank.

For example I know a lawyer who used one of my friends to do his wedding. 'You shoot my wedding, I give you free legal services if you ever need them'. My friend took some beautiful photos by the way, I'd have him cover my wedding (or vow renewal as the case would be) without hesitation. I think he's only shot two weddings FWIW.

In any case, as DSLRs become more prolific, like it or not (and I'm sure plenty of wedding photos will be subpar) the industry is going to have to adapt.

This is my point exactly.

Professional photographers need to stop thinking of themselves as artists, and start viewing themselves as hired guns. In this day, the consumer of the photography rules the market, not the photographer. Photographers who insist upon a business plan predicated upon prints will fail.

99% of photographers don't bring a marketable unique or special artistic quality to the table, and they need to realize it. Joe and Jane Doe don't care about the photographer's "artistic vision" when it comes to their wedding photos, they care about their special day.

There are a variety of new and exciting ways photographers can earn a living (eBooks, blogs, corporate clients needing content for their vast digital landscapes, etc.) that simply were not possible a decade ago. It may require a skill-set beyond being able to take good wedding portraits, but the possibilities truly are endless. This era is hardly the end of the professional photographer, it's just a shift in thinking.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

Idk, I think the DJ v. Live Music argument is a different situation. Personally, I'd always choose a DJ over a live band because I'm not a huge fan of live music. For the most part, I like songs by the original artist, and I like a variety of genres. I wouldn't want to have a live band at my reception because it's not the kind of atmosphere I would want to create.

As for photography, I would agree that more people used a professional photographer for events 20 years ago - but that's simply because photography and cameras are more accessible today than they were 20 years ago. Back then, the family might own a film camera, but it wasn't in every household. Even so, it took more skill to operate and was more costly for mistakes than a digital camera is today. They might've hired a professional photographer not because they particularly wanted high-quality photos, but because they wanted photos, and they were incapable of producing them themselves. They might've been perfectly happy with iPhone photos 20 years ago, but that wasn't an option.

The photographer I work for is from a small town and we've noticed a change in clients and business over the years. Not just that, but a change in what defines a professional photographer. His father was a photographer, and they both went to school specifically to become a photographer. It was a greater time and money investment to become a photographer. Today, almost anyone can acquire a DSLR and develop their skill for photography. Schooling doesn't matter so much anymore as does natural talent (not saying professional photographers back in the day didn't have natural talent... they definitely did, it just took a lot more investment in that natural talent than it does today).

A girl who went to high school with me is majoring in photography, and honestly, her photos are some of the worst (IMO) that I've come across. She goes crazy with the gaussian blur and over glamorizes all of her photos, by the time she is finished with the heavy post-processing, it's just a mess. Her composition is actually terrible for going to school for photography, though I'll admit I haven't looked at her photos recently, so she might've made a drastic improvement. But I don't think it takes a sharp eye to see what's a good photo and what's not a good photo. It makes me question the validity behind a photography degree today. Honestly, I think most people consider it a joke major along with the liberal arts (Hey, I'm on the art side - I'm an architecture major, and I get enough jokes from my engineering friends about how I'm majoring in "arts and crafts" - it's sad how art isn't appreciated anymore... it's not that it isn't valued, but it isn't recognized).

We live in such a fast-paced, tech-savvy world that art is seemingly unappreciated, and talent goes unrecognized. I think only the artistic understand the artistic. Technology may be changing the way we produce art and people's desire for it, but I don't think it is going to eliminate it.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

Professional photographers need to stop thinking of themselves as artists, and start viewing themselves as hired guns. In this day, the consumer of the photography rules the market, not the photographer. Photographers who insist upon a business plan predicated upon prints will fail.

I agree and disagree.

I don't think photographers should ever stop thinking of themselves as artists. I think if the passion is lost, then the beauty is lost, and therefore the desire. The photographer I work for has had days when he just gets frustrated with the client's lack of understanding. And those days, he produces photographs that aren't his best. But when he gets into it, sees the beauty and goes in full force to capture it, those are his best photographs, and those are the ones that sell. I think if you stop pushing the boundaries and fall in a rut of settling for average, settling for the minimum, that's when you lose your zest for something you once loved. And when that passion is gone, business suffers.

Now on the other hand, I completely agree that photographers need to understand today's market and jump on the digital train. Clients want JPEGs to share on Facebook, digitally scrapbook with, etc. I understand how the photographer feels like they've given up their rights when they hand out those JPEGs, but that's what sells. We used to sell a photo DVD for $300. A lot of people wanted digitial images, but they didn't want all of them. So I worked out a plan of purchasing individual JPEGs. I think it was $15 each for the first five, and $10 each for each additional. Those things sold! That's what the kids wanted (we shoot high school seniors over the summer) - digital JPEGs to put on Facebook and show their friends. We started uploading pictures to our Facebook more, and it really increased everyone's interest in senior portraits.

 

[WDWFigment]

I agree and disagree.

I don't think photographers should ever stop thinking of themselves as artists. I think if the passion is lost, then the beauty is lost, and therefore the desire. The photographer I work for has had days when he just gets frustrated with the client's lack of understanding. And those days, he produces photographs that aren't his best. But when he gets into it, sees the beauty and goes in full force to capture it, those are his best photographs, and those are the ones that sell. I think if you stop pushing the boundaries and fall in a rut of settling for average, settling for the minimum, that's when you lose your zest for something you once loved. And when that passion is gone, business suffers.

Now on the other hand, I completely agree that photographers need to understand today's market and jump on the digital train. Clients want JPEGs to share on Facebook, digitally scrapbook with, etc. I understand how the photographer feels like they've given up their rights when they hand out those JPEGs, but that's what sells. We used to sell a photo DVD for $300. A lot of people wanted digitial images, but they didn't want all of them. So I worked out a plan of purchasing individual JPEGs. I think it was $15 each for the first five, and $10 each for each additional. Those things sold! That's what the kids wanted (we shoot high school seniors over the summer) - digital JPEGs to put on Facebook and show their friends. We started uploading pictures to our Facebook more, and it really increased everyone's interest in senior portraits.

My post was partly hyperbole on that point. I guess it's better stated that some professional photographers need to get their heads out of the clouds and realize they serve their clients. Most of them are not simply/only artists pursuing their calling.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

My post was partly hyperbole on that point. I guess it's better stated that some professional photographers need to get their heads out of the clouds and realize they serve their clients. Most of them are not simply/only artists pursuing their calling.

Yeah, I completely understand. The market is changing, and not just photography, but the relationship between the photographer and the client is changing. We can sit back and reminisce about the good ole days as much as we want, but the photographers who don't embrace it and go with the changes are probably going to be left behind.

 

[photo_chick]

This is my point exactly.

Professional photographers need to stop thinking of themselves as artists, and start viewing themselves as hired guns. In this day, the consumer of the photography rules the market, not the photographer. Photographers who insist upon a business plan predicated upon prints will fail.

99% of photographers don't bring a marketable unique or special artistic quality to the table, and they need to realize it. Joe and Jane Doe don't care about the photographer's "artistic vision" when it comes to their wedding photos, they care about their special day.

There are a variety of new and exciting ways photographers can earn a living (eBooks, blogs, corporate clients needing content for their vast digital landscapes, etc.) that simply were not possible a decade ago. It may require a skill-set beyond being able to take good wedding portraits, but the possibilities truly are endless. This era is hardly the end of the professional photographer, it's just a shift in thinking.

That right there. Exactly. It's interesting, going to school for a fine art photography degree you're viewed as a bit of a sellout by many there if you go into portrait or wedding photography. Many "fine art" photographers already see it as a different type of photography. Not that portraits and weddings can't be art, but when you're selling it like most portrait and wedding photographers do it's viewed in the art world to be about as close to fine art as McDonalds is to gourmet food. And in many cases that is an accurate analogy. You see the same tired Dutch angle shots, the same sun kissed backlighting, the same over processed high contrast images from a LOT of pros now. Just look at all the Pinterest groups dedicated to this.There are very few who rise above the masses to become like Herb Ritts, Annie Leibowitz or Irving Penn where they can have a print that becomes an art object rather than just another photograph.

But don't try and tell a mom-tog who picked up a camera and decided to turn pro that she's not creating fine art that should be cherished with every click of her shutter. They'll throw their 5D and Kelly Moore bag full of L series lenses at you.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

But don't try and tell a mom-tog who picked up a camera and decided to turn pro that she's not creating fine art that should be cherished with every click of her shutter. They'll throw their 5D and Kelly Moore bag full of L series lenses at you.

 

[Shutterbug]

My thoughts on this discussion....

People using Ipads and Iphones. Its all about people wanting it posted what they are doing now. I know when I am out at one of my groups gatherings, that if I take pics with Iphone during and post them right away there are lots of hits and comments. If I take them with the DSLR go home and a lil time editing and post them the next day, there are few hits and comments. Sort of like "oh that was yesterday, that's old news" type thing.
Its more about seeing it now, doesn't matter the quality of the photo(grainy, over-under exposure, composition) as long as it is now.

Weddings photographs. I think that is becoming a divided group. You will have those that want the super artistic extravagant photos. Then you will have those that will just be happy to have photos where the brides or grooms heads havent been chopped off and everyone is smiling.

Other thought on this is this. You have photographs that photographers think are good then you will have photos that everyone else thinks are good. As my mom has said, "yeah I dont know photography but I know what I like. " There have times when I have been showing photos to family and I will mention how I will be deleting this one or that one. I hear "why are you deleting it" dont delete it. Thats a great pic!" Great pic? The sky is flat. The composition is all wrong. They say they still like so I let them have it.
Another instance I posted two photos to a facebook page. The first pic, I thought was an okay pic, almost anyone could have taken it, just pointed camera and shot it but it had lots strong color and unique view. The second pic using the same subject but it was much more "photographically" correct, took time to get the composition just right, took lots of effort to get expsoure right. The first photo got over 300 likes the second photo just 50. So when you are shooting for someone its good to know your clients taste. Yes as said above..a hired gun...actually I like that term..lol

Let me edit one more thing. Last year I was at best buy when I overheard a customer asking for a PnS camera that had that feature that can take those cool out of focus background pics......*smh*

One more edit...I really hate those "Duck Face" photos....lol

 

[WDWFigment]

But don't try and tell a mom-tog who picked up a camera and decided to turn pro that she's not creating fine art that should be cherished with every click of her shutter. They'll throw their 5D and Kelly Moore bag full of L series lenses at you.

Had to Google the Kelly Moore bag. That's something else. No further comment...