snip

No, and I don't think it will, to any great extent. Most of my work
involves a combination of writing and photography, even in auto
features. This requires reasonably extensive knowledge of the subject
being photographed, whether a classic car or a woodworking technique or
tool or a house, or...you name it.

The car features might be affected, but...there is more to it than just
point and click away with a shiny object in front of you. Composition
and pinpoint sharpness in the correct areas start the list. Reflections
add to it: I just sent an editor a semi-joke photo called "Find the
photographer" of the gleaming trunk lid of a classic car. Though I had
danced over half of creation trying to hide, I was still visible if you
knew where and how to look.

Angles, lighting, focus, general composition all make it more difficult
to do well than just pointing a good camera and clicking the shutter.
That will probably always be the case.

Some portrait photographers are going to be in trouble, I'm sure. I
know companies often pay to have head shots taken for use with press
releases. I have no idea what is charged, but that's one point where a
background and a couple cheap lights, along with a decent low end
digital camera, can kill photography markets. I noticed, too, that even
church photographers have gone digital. That's a market that may be due
for some major shifts, but I think it's largely because people are
becoming less satisfied with the results they see, the production line
quality of the sittings.

Wedding photography? I doubt it, really, in the long run. I've shot a
few weddings, none recently and I won't do a full wedding ever again.
Too much work. If the person buying the package compares what the pro
does with what his amateur buddies do, then the checkbook will hit the
pro's desk first. It's not just a matter of talent and camera. It is a
matter of a developed "eye" for what is likely to strike each client as
the best at bringing back memories (of course, if the divorce rate
keeps rising, it may be that no one will WANT those memories, but
that's an entirely different subject).

Basically, I see the production line photographers, school and church
particularly, as running into some problems, possibly minor. Many may
be forced to rethink their approach to photography, to get away from
the cliched poses and exposures that have been in use since before I
was in high school. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Even
amateur competition can be good if it improves what the client receives.

You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
must have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
created by the photographer.  If snap shooters are stealing your
business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

    I can speak to this.  I bought a basic dSLR and a telephoto zoom lens
this spring (a 300d and a <gasp> Tamron 75-300), and my girlfriend has
used it on a weekly basis to attend low-end horse shows to take
pictures.  She works on a P&S level, and wouldn't know an L-series 300mm
if it fell on her foot.  There is a local riding organization where she
is one of the 'staff' photographers who are similarly equipped and
experienced.  Then the pics are made available for the org. members to
browse thru and purchase for a very reasonable price.  (pricing of
course is commensurate with the experience/investment of the
photographers, but for the pics that come out well presents quite a nice
value to the customer).
    I have to say, we/she can get some stunning images, and the customers
are very happy.  There was one show where a true professional
photographer attended (by mistake of the organizers, who also invited
her club's photographers), complete with a powered trailer loaded with
post-processing and printing gear to make instant prints.  It didn't
take long to realize that because he had little experience riding and
shooting horses, that his technical skills were offset by the eye of the
amateur staff photographers.  Once that pro figured out the situation,
he was pretty pissed (usually it's an exclusive agreement to be the
photographer), he gave them dirty looks all day long, but it wasn't
their fault.  It takes an eye for the breed and showing type to capture
images the way the riders want to see themselves - and that IMO seems to
make the big difference.  And these shows aren't big enough to warrant a
professional equestrian photographer.
    So, I guess my conclusion is that since in good lighting conditions,
affordable digital products make for a legitimately sellable product in
some cases (outdoor shows with good lighting, low-level riders).  Is she
making real money doing this?  No, certainly not enough to pay for the
gear investment, and if we would invest in more appropriate equipment (a
20d, f/2.8L 70-200, etc) she would never catch up.  At the cost point
she's offering at it's mostly a service and the print sales almost pay
for her time.  I think that this organization's staff photography has
definitely cut into the realm of a few pros, but that it's at a low
level (in $$) and the staff crew won't be cutting in much further.

    Dave

What I've seen happening, is that it seems every rich kid with a DSLR
suddenly thinks they are a Pro photographer. I occasionally do work in a
printing lab that caters for a lot of the "pro's" who do weddings etc, and
frankly most of this work is pure rubbish. We have a regular clientel of
about 10 wedding photographers, who all do a wedding pretty much every week.
Of those, there is only 1 that I would even consider getting to do work. The
rest seem to not have a basic grasp of exposure, focus, depth of field and
framing. A photographer who can't get exposure and focus reasonably right
with a 20D or D70 is pretty hopeless IMO.
I don't actively pursue professional photographic work (although I will take
it when asked), and I certainly don't consider myself a pro, but I can tell
the difference between someone taking snapshots and someone who is a
professional photographer in the real sense of the word. (I think I fit
somewhere in the middle).
Considering "professional" simply means those who are paid to take photos, I
think there are a couple of categories within the term professional.
1. There are the true professionals, who are excellent at their craft. These
people could take sellable photos with a camera-phone or a disposable,
because their skill lies not only in mastering the technical side of
photography (exposure, focus etc), but also in the artistic side of
photography (composure etc).
2. There are the snapshooters with an expensive camera. These people take
pretty good photos, but it is only because they have expensive equipment.
They may have mastered the ability to purchase gear, and are probably pretty
good at the technical aspects of taking a photograph, but often are mediocre
or worse when it comes to the artistic side of photography. These are also
the people who seem most likely to enter into "my gear is better than your
gear" matches, or brag about how many Canon L series lenses they own.
It is the photographers who fit into category 2 that I see are becoming more
and more prevalent in professional circles, especially wedding and portrait
photography.
A few months ago I shot a wedding where the client hired 2 photographers -
one did digital colour work and I was there for B&W film work. The #1
photographer was well and truly a category 2 above. The whole time he was
ridiculing me for still shooting film, ridiculing me for using a Pentax
camera, and gloating that pro's only use Canon. He was a total pain in the
arse. Did you know that the trouble with Pentax cameras is that the images
they produce are too sharp to be considered professional? This is because
the camera does more in-camera sharpening than Canons, and this applies to
both film and digital cameras. just one of the little gems of wisdom from
this moron. That from someone who couldn't understand why I would be using
colour filters when shooting B&W film. I know for a fact that I sold more
prints from that day than he did, so there can't be too much wrong with
those over-sharp pentax film cameras.

Yes, digital photography has led to a glut of crappy photographs on the
market and at the best everyone's images look the same. No originality,
just people following the leader. I can't tell you how many times I
wanted to slap someone silly because they wanted to shoot like Ansel
Adams. Everyone thinks they are a photographer and they will be famous.

Take that! :^P

Pros? Who gives ahit about 'pros'?

They're morons and a.sholes!

Think back to the time when word processors first came out. Did
everyone write a life changing novel for people?
Or back further to when anyone could walk into a store and buy a 2400
baud modem. The fact that they were even online made many ppl believe
that everything they said was very insightful and true.

High end AF cameras have only made it easier for people to turn out
large amounts of bad photos. A real pro (tm) can pick up any camera,
anywhere and still get the shot while others are bewildered by the
"business" of photography ie: metering and composition.

An AF camera doesn't automagically make a good photographer. Photo
editors with experiance know this and know who they can relay on.

    Don

Paris photo workshops.com
http:/www.parisphotoworkshops.com

I'm a wedding photographer,  so I will comment on this arena.

I don't fear this happening at all.     Already, and it has always been so,
that a good percentage of brides do not hire a pro, anyway,  due to budget
restraints and not enough desire to have pro quality pictures.

Still,  the large percentage of brides that do value quality photos, and do
have it within their means to hire a pro,  will always do so because it is
important to have someone dedicated to the task.   This is even more true
today because of the trend towards "photojournalistic" style wedding
photography,  which demands that someone be dedicated to the task of
capturing moments,  and who has the trained eye to see them.

Patrick

There has been some commentary and speculation in the industry, though in
general there are only a few realities. Mostly business practices have
impacted professional photographers much more than technology. Rights issues
and speculation type work are hurting the industry.

There is a huge controversy about OnRequest Images, who have something they
call "Custom Stock". Basically, it is shoot on speculation, with expenses
covered by the photographer, and no guarantee of payment later, unless an
image gets used. If you want to know more, I suggest you investigate at ASMP,
APA, or on PDN Forums.

Similar bad contracts have decimated the photojournalists field. Pay rates
have greatly dropped, credit for images has disappeared in many places, and
future rights have been usurped. Photojournalism has almost become a
pay-to-play field, with many new to the industry quitting in less than three
years.

Now we have an issue of the public providing news images for free, sometimes
from camera phones. At least one company in the UK is trying to tap into that
market, providing news and event coverage from "donated" images. My feeling
is that if someone is making money from the images, then the photographer
should be paid, even if that photographer was only an amateur or enthusiast.

You might be on it with product photography. That realm is all about high
volume in most situations. Some places are going in house with their own mini
studio. The sad thing I see is job listing for this type of in-house work
that pay barely above minimum wage level.

I don't think it is the quality, I think it is the immediate feedback
creating a false sense of security. What looks good on a small LCD, or even a
computer monitor, might not look as good in final printing.

Maybe only true in product photography . . . . . I think what is missed here
is that photography is much more than learning a camera. The skills of
composition and lighting, combined with an intuition of knowing when to push
the shutter button, are what makes images compelling. Volume of shots does
not automatically make someone a better photographer.

I think it would be more of lowering the bar, or more acceptance of
mediocrity. Professional does not mean owning and operating the gear, or you
might as well just be a rental house, rather than a photographer. What
separates one professional from another are the ability to create compelling
images, a creative vision (some call that a style), and the connections to
people so they know who you are and what you do.

Photography as a business is still a business. Just having people low balling
bids, or clients using speculative methods to get images, large stock
libraries, et al, does not diminish professional photography. The greatest
competition is actually at the lowest end of the market, often towards
clients that might have never hired a photographer for a specific assignment.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty enough to keep some photographers
employed just by going after this low end market. It would be easy to stay
super busy catering to the low end and small businesses. My feeling is that
it is better to work smarter, not harder, and attract business from those
companies that understand and appreciate my talents.

I saw this a few years ago when I ran into Mr. InstaPrint at an event next to
my house. He had a Kodak DCS digital body, and a dye sub Kodak printer in the
back of his car. Using those, he was able to produce prints at the event very
quickly, and sell them fairly quickly. That instant gratification market
worked well for him. He had no assignments, and just kept a listing of
events, then showed up anywhere he could and tried to make some sales.
Basically, he met a need, but only to the point that his gear was slightly
better than what the average person at the event already was using.

If you are trying to sell your services based on what you use, you will
eventually either be priced out by constant upgrades, or beat out by the
average person you see as a potential customer. The only way to sustain an
imaging business is by offering compelling and interesting images, something
beyond what the average individual can accomplish.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

<Snip>

I agree on thw whole, but there will always be a "professional" gap. And
sadly I think the manufacturing companies out there will help to keep this
gap open by the way they price there products.

By this I mean we will see the prices of "professional" equipment, like
lenses / flash / etc go higher so there is a distinct gap between
amateur/prosumer to professional.

I can take some pretty good photos with my prosumer equipment. And if I had
the AU$16,000 Canon 400m f2.8L IS USM I could take some really good photos.
That is the gap that will keep the prosumers from being pro's.

Lachy