This section attempts to answer the very controversial question of whether photography as a profession is dead. It's a very touch topic with everyone I've spoken to, so I've made a concerted effort to go back to basics and look at the whole topic from the ground up, and as a consequence is veryyyy long. It has an interesting conclusion though, so if you don't have the time to read it all, skip down to the section on "Transition in default image capture mediums", it provides a good answer to everything.
Photography has always had commercial value since its
inception in the early 1800’s. Early development of the industry brought about
the creation of increasingly faster photographic equipment and processes. This
made film photography attractive and affordable for scientists and eventually
businesses, which used the new medium for new purposes such as motion studies
and photographic advertising. Ever since then there have been professionals
utilising photography as a way to make money.
With the digital revolution, photography experienced a rapid
change which resulted in low cost cameras and computers becoming readily
accessible to not only professionals but also the general public. This led to
an influx of new young photographers who had the capability of learning how to
take high quality commercially valuable photos without the previously huge
expense. With such an explosion of accessibility and young talent, older
photographers who were brought up in what they thought of as the ‘golden era’
of film photography resultantly began to question the future of photography as
a profession. With nearly everyone now having the ability to take large amounts
of photos on automatic cameras, have photographs lost some of their value? And
with an abundance of young talent willing to take commercial photos for low
cost or even for free, is the profession slowly dying? These are important questions
to be answered in order to determine how image quality is affecting the
industry and how it will drive the future of camera development.
Specialising within photography
Before attempting to answer these questions, it is important
to understand more about photographic professions. In most industries,
individuals follow well defined career paths, usually featuring ladder systems
allowing them to start at the bottom of a business and to work their way up to
higher paying and more rewarding jobs nearer the top. However, a career in
photography is usually self-initiated and forged by keen individuals who progress
from being hobbyists to professionals by specialising in a specific type of
photography. Once a master of their particular specialisation, it is assumed
that someone will have an interest in paying the individual to take photos, and
so photography becomes their profession.
There are endless specialisations ranging from the expected,
like wedding photography, to the unusual, like microbiologic photography. Thanks
to humanities curiosity, everything that we can see with our eyes, and even the
things we can’t (infrared, microscopic), can and will be photographed. Not only
that, but with a world full of diverse companies interested in utilising
imagery as a way of enhancing their business, there is at least some level of
commercial value in each specialisation. Below is a list* of most of the common
types of photography that the public will have encountered or heard of.
Family
Wedding
Fashion / Editorial
Landscape
Wildlife
Journalism
Sports
Event
Real Estate
|
Music Concert
Travel
Street
Food
Still Life
Product
Vehicle
Stock
Paparazzi
|
Erotic
Underwater
Astrological
Infrared
Macro
Microscopic
Medical
Scientific / Biological
Forensic
|
Examples of professional photography, Wedding and Infra-red.
While photographers often refer to their job via their
specialisation (for example introducing themselves as a fashion photographers
or wedding photographers), it is much more suitable to categorise photography
professionals by their trading style. There are two distinct styles; working
for yourself as a freelancer, and working in-house for a business. Due to its
size, I have decided to further split the freelance category into two to
reflect differences between the top and the bottom of the market.
Low
End Freelance
|
High
End Freelance
|
In-House
|
The majority of professionals within the industry work
freelance. They build a good portfolio of work based upon their specialisation,
and then attain jobs based on that and their reputation. At the low end of the
industry, photographers tend to work for the public in their local area rather
than big businesses, with common specialisations including more personal
services like family portraiture and wedding photography. As a sole trader, or
with a small team of assistants, photographers in this end of the market rely a
lot on their ability to build up good rapport with their clients, which often
means that there is a lot of informal contact time to help establish good
relationships.
Prices are usually based upon time, often charged by the
day, before adding on additional expenses such as print and production costs
specific to the clients’ requirements. Costs unrelated to specific jobs include
insurance, equipment maintenance, and computer services such as web domain
rental. Almost the entire segment use similar types of camera equipment. This
tends to include prosumer or professional level DSLRs, a selection of lenses,
multiple memory cards, and for studio workers such as portrait photographers,
low to mid range studio flash lights and accessories. Photographers who
photograph ‘only happens once’ events such as weddings may have multiple copies
of equipment, such as two camera bodies, in case on fails during a job. Many
low end freelancers will try to reduce their costs by upgrading their kit less
regularly, making a website on their own, and making compromises in their
general lifestyles to keep their business a float. A website featuring a
digital portfolio is common place, and social networking interaction is also
increasingly being used to self-promote and attract new clients.
This section of the market is under extreme pressure. There
are lots of new photographers trying to enter the professional world every day,
and as such competition for jobs has risen fast over the past decade. Young
ambitious photographers with few social responsibilities are increasingly
competing for jobs alongside professionals as the learning curve to producing
professional quality work is gradually reduced by technology. Alongside this,
the high accessibility of good photography equipment for cheap is also causing
potential clients to ask whether paying for professional photos is really worth
it, or whether it would be wiser for them to either do it in house using their
own equipment, or to get someone to do it for little money or even free.
Working for free is a bad business strategy to anyone trying to make a living,
but with so many photographers in the market, many consider any work to be good
work regardless of the pay. To help counter some of these business problems,
some photographers take jobs outside of their specialisation.
At the other end of the freelance segment of the industry,
we find a smaller selection of better known photographers who are highly
specialised in their chosen field. As with low end freelancers, a lot of
business is drawn from having a good reputation and a solid working portfolio.
Jobs are usually business to business, with the resultant photos being used
commercially. Typical jobs include fashion, product, architecture, automotive
photography, or anything that is highly specialist and requires a master’s
skill in capturing. With bigger jobs, tighter deadlines, and demanding business
clients, the photographer spends most of their time away from the camera.
Logistics, organisation, communication, location and model scouting, and
setting up take up most of the photographer’s time.
Commercial photoshoot of for a car advert
Prices at this level are higher, and correlate with
reputation as well as the scale of the job. While still based on day rates,
overheads and additional expenses contribute massively to the final bill.
Paying multiple assistants, hire of ultra-specialist equipment (sometimes
unrelated to photography, for example a car jack for lifting part of a car),
location fees add to standard fees like post production and image retouching.
Camera equipment has to be bought by the photographer (unless a job requires a
specialist camera that could be rented). Cameras used at this level are usually
medium format high resolution cameras, which can be mounted onto a number of
specialised camera bodies for different specialisations (macro bellows for
product shots, view bodies for architecture etc). These are extremely expensive
to buy and maintain, and require expensive support equipment like lights and
high powered computers. These overhead costs go part way to justifying the
higher invoice prices given for jobs.
For young photographers, being a successful high end
freelance photographer is their idealistic career aim. It is viewed as a
glamorous job, thanks to strong representation in the media. Most well-known
photographers, who work with clients internationally, are exemplified in photo
magazines and online blogs. At this level however, jobs become less and less
about the actual taking the photos, and much more about the vision,
preparation, and organisation of everything. Taking the photo is in reality the
easiest part of the process, something that often isn’t taken into
consideration by budding amateurs and new professionals.
Photography jobs working within a company offer the most
financial and lifestyle security, and as such are the most desired jobs in the
entire industry. While not immune from changes caused by the development of
technology, these jobs can offer long term employment with a guaranteed salary.
Common employers are high-street and online retailers, media businesses like
magazines and newspapers, and real estate agents, with the majority of shots
being used commercially for catalogues, media, and advertisements.
Photographers in this segment of the market often work with assistants and also
with other employees of the business they work in.
In house photographer taking advertising photos for high-street retailer John Lewis
As a full or part time employee, pricing isn’t an issue. Expenses and production costs are paid for out of a budget allocated by the business for each individual job. Equipment is also paid for by the business, from an allocated resources budget that can be awarded to departments on a yearly or other such time basis. This means the cameras and accessories are owned by the business, but are almost solely specified by and for the use of the photographer. With specific applications for each business, investment can be made into more specialist cameras. For example, View cameras which are tripod based and have vast amounts of adjustable optical positions are commonly used for product, interior, and architecture shots, while flagship DSLR cameras and top end telephoto lenses may be used by reporters and magazine photographers. As an employee of a business whose core interest isn’t in the photographic industry, there is no concern for finding clients, maintaining portfolios or websites, or setting prices.
This segment of the market is fairly safe from drastic
change. It is safe to say that in our lifetime, businesses will always need
photography to be included as part of their marketing strategy. Photography is,
at its core, simply a method of communication, and as such it will not
disappear quickly. Employing a full time photographer can often be a cheaper
solution (and also logistically simpler) for a business who is in constant need
of high quality photos than hiring a freelance photographer who has the
leverage to charge a high price.
Is the profession dying?
The death of photography is a topic discussed at length by
people across the industry; from small time ambitious amateurs right the way up
to leading photo service/manufacturer CEOs. It is interesting and informative
to read some of their publicised arguments on the topic, as most people
discussing it have their entire livelihood riding on their continued
professional involvement with in the photo industry, and so it gives a real ‘front
line’ insight into the troubles and concerns of professionals. The following
summaries are a small cross section of opinions from a small cross section of
the industry.
CEO
of Yahoo!
(owners of the photo sharing platform Flickr)
During
a press event in New York, following an announcement of the reformatting of
Yahoo!’s internet based photo sharing platform Flickr, CEO Marissa Mayer
caused media controversy by saying that there is no such thing as a
professional photographer anymore. This was in response to questions from the
press concerning why Yahoo! had chosen to remove its “pro” category of
product services from Flickr in favour of a single all inclusive category.
This demonstrates the industries perspective and how their strategy is
shifting due to lack of adequate income from working photographic
professionals as their numbers reduce.
“ ... it was a decision that we would not
have the Flickr Pro piece anymore, and that all - there's no such thing as
Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no
such thing really as professional photographers, when there's everything is
professional photographers. Certainly there is varying levels of skills, but
we didn't want to have a Flickr Pro anymore, we wanted everyone to have
professional quality photos, space, and sharing.”
|
Professional
freelance advertising/editorial photographer
“ Clients
that were using film photographers unwilling to shoot digitally were now
coming to people like me for work. I could do the same job for less money and
provide a more convenient, fast and robust set of services than any film
shooter could. My clients could see the shot develop instantly on a tethered
laptop and often times got a CD-ROM (remember those?) before they left the
shoot.
…
So yes, the traditional professional photographers
that only offer a print might be done for but a pro that offers a hybrid of
still + motion & sound? They’ll have over a billion potential
opportunities to sell their work. In
the very near future pros will be capturing stills + motion & sound with
ease, leaving the still-only photographer to fight with the hordes of
enthusiasts that are quite good at making beautiful photography.”
|
Laurence Kim
Freelance photographer
(Wedding + Stock Portrait)
|
Talbert McMullin
Freelance photographer (Historical Architecture)
“Technology is on the move at
an ever-increasing pace. Values, tastes, perceptions, the way we communicate
and the economy are all changing. Reality check: These are factors you cannot
control, so get over it. Technology puts better photos in the hands of amateurs
Right or wrong, the public
perception of professional photography is that it’s unnecessary, a ripoff, or
even fraud. To put it mildly, the average Joe thinks he can do as good a job
as any professional, and that professional services are a waste of money. It’s
an attitude that’s hard to change because you have no control over it.”
|
Freelance photographer (Wedding,
Commercial, Portrait)
This is not just happening in
photo world, but in the recording industry and in the low budget independent
film market and I presume any other industry that adopted pro-sumer equipment
in a professional environment. The whole situation really needs a new
paradigm for deconstruction… I am still confident that the best and most
innovative will survive, but I expect it to be a small number in a very tough
and rarified market.”
|
 (My own opinion)
Amateur photographer (Fashion)
Having experience as an amateur
photographer, I think it is important to include my own opinion to help give
a perspective view from someone younger, trying to get into the industry.
“Like
thousands of other young photographers of my age group (16-25), I have been
brought up with digital cameras and had the benefit of being able to learn
how to take good quality photos very fast through trial and error. This, along
with ample cheap learning resources such as comprehensive books and articles
on the internet, has helped me improve my work to the point where I and
others consider it to be of a professional standard.
Given
this, I thought transitioning from a hobbiest to a professional would be
easy, as long as the right people saw the high quality of my work. This
however hasn’t been the case. I am a fashion photographer yet have never been able to catch a paid
job. I have done photoshoots for new fashion designers for free to help boost
my experience in the hope it would lead to better and paid jobs, however it
has become increasingly clear that people just don’t want to spend money on
professional photographic services. Even with experience across the country, with
makeup artists, my own assistant (working with me for free I might add), my
own studio (space provided for free by my dads business), my own professional
equipment including studio strobe lights, nobody wants to pay for your photos.
I still get asked to work for free, even though the photos are to be used
commercially. No amount of help from my parents or assistant will help me to
turn this into a career if clients just refuse to pay for my services. The
only times I have been offered pay is when I have been asked to cover events,
or bands, or do video, work that isn’t even within my specialisation or in my
portfolio. I refuse to work for free on principle most of the time, and
bite peoples hands off whenever I’m offered paid work, even if it isn’t
related to my core interests.
This
is the most common problem I have heard among young photographers I know.
“We can’t pay you, but it’d be good experience and exposure for you as your
photos will be seen by lots of people.” Well no, not really, experience and
so called “exposure” won’t pay for bills, and so in the cold light of day, as
I grow up and start to become financially independent, for me and many others
photography just isn’t a viable career choice. Not even for people with
amazing experience (I’ve done photoshoots with tokyo based models over in
Japan! How much experience do you need to prove yourself?!) and incredible talent. This is in stark contrast to what we read in the media though, of us
younger photographers stealing the jobs from older long time photographers.
This is because when we are young, with little responsibility to drag us down,
many of us have done those jobs for free, me included. Sometimes we think it has to be done in
order to follow our ambitions of becoming a professional. In reality though,
it won’t happen for many of us, and after a few years (in my case 3) of
taking free jobs and trying to spread your name, most of us fold in and and
allow the next bunch of hopeful teenagers to take over the trying.”
|
As identified from the different structures of photographic
businesses, and further confirmed by some of the first hand publicised
opinions, some segments of the market are more vulnerable to change than
others.
“Usually the amateur
is defined as an immature state of the artist: someone who cannot — or will not
— achieve the mastery of a profession. But in the field of photographic
practice, it is the amateur, on the contrary, who is the assumption of the
professional: for it is he who stands closer to the noema of photography.” - Camera Lucida
The quote above sums up fairly well the problem as seen from
the working professional’s perspective. As the market has changed, it feels
like anyone can pick up a camera and take the jobs of seasoned photographers.
The elder generations exhibit mild resentment for the changes in the industry;
the ease in which photography can be learnt thanks to better resources and
advantages awarded by the automation of digital cameras. The vast majority however
are a lot more concerned about how they are to remain competitive. They are all
very aware that there is very little money in photography jobs currently, and
without change, many businesses will fade into obscurity. The ones willing to
change seem to suggest similar solutions: add value beyond the actual taking of
the photo, and expand services by move into other specialities or using a
hybrid of stills and video.
It is difficult to get well documented opinions of the young
photographers who have been brought up on digital technology and are trying to
get into the industry. While they engage in social media and are fairly good at
spreading their name and work among friends and family, they rarely take the
time to write out their frustrations. I included my own opinion as a slight
insight on behalf of these unheard amateur photographers. I know a lot of
people my age trying to break into the photography professional and we all
share the same frustrations. It seems like there are no jobs that are willing to
pay, yet we take some of them anyway simply because we love taking photos.
Maybe idealistically we take free jobs with the anticipation that it will help
us become better known and eventually we will be hired. This isn’t outside of
the realms of possibility. A photographer I follow, Jack Alexander, was hired
to work in-house for a modelling agency, and was moved to London to do
photo-shoots with local and international models. This is the dream job many of
us (especially me being an amateur fashion photographer) aspire to, but it only
happens to a few. Of all the photographers I know, he is the only one to be
employed, while the others struggle to make the break though and continue to do
little jobs for free or low pay. In reality, many of us will fold into
pressures of adult responsibility, and will let photography slip into a hobby
while we pursue more stable careers.
Jack Alexander is a young
photographer whose persistence in taking free jobs paid off.
Starting as a hobby, progressing though university and doing small jobs for bands, he is now
employed full time by Models1 modelling agency.
Starting as a hobby, progressing though university and doing small jobs for bands, he is now
employed full time by Models1 modelling agency.
The slowdown of the photography trade is easy to ‘blame on
the kids’, so to speak. The younger generation were brought up with computers,
internet, and digital cameras and as such they have a natural affinity with new
technology which the elder generation can struggle to adapt too. However, it’s
unfair to place blame on this generation; after all, regardless of your opinion
on the matter; the new generation have produced millions of very highly skilled
new photographers who produce exceptional photos. If amateurs couldn’t take
photos that have such high commercial value, then the businesses wouldn’t be
turning to them more and more!
This
photo could easily be from an editorial piece in a fashion magazine. In fact
it isn’t; this photo was taken by a 16 year old French photographer Emma Birski, who has only
been photographing for 3 years!
it isn’t; this photo was taken by a 16 year old French photographer Emma Birski, who has only
been photographing for 3 years!
For whole of this chapter we have been talking about
commercial value, which you may argue isn’t really a part of my overarching
research topic of qualitative image quality. However, I argue that it is, as I
see that in the present world, commercial value as one of those difficult to
measure image qualities that can’t easily be explained with numbers or
technical details. It is fair to say that once upon a time commercially
suitable images used to be not a lot
more than just a well taken and processed photo. Taking high quality photos was
all that warranted commercial value, as in the past it was much more difficult
to get everything right, with films, darkroom processing, light metering,
exposure calculations, setting selection all needing to be expertly set without
the aid of any automatic devices. It was a difficult thing to do, and if you
could do it well, repeatedly, then you stood a good chance of turning your
photography into a profession.
This has changed though. Commercial value is no longer
defined by quantitative image quality, the settings and resolution of the film
etc etc, but instead by all the things that define the content of the photo.
Put simply, the preserved value of professional photography is going down. Value
comes from being able to do something that other people are incapable of, or at
the very least being able to do it faster or better than them. In the world of
digital cameras, the defining factors of commercial quality have become
automated, handled by a computer and the cameras specifications. Now that the
public can suddenly take professional looking photos, they start to question
the value of paying for expensive professional services. It makes more sense
for them to save the money and do it themselves, or ask one of the many in the
new generation who are keen to expand their hobby.
Many existing professionals have identified this change, and
you see an increasing number of small photography businesses now placing the
majority of their effort into the services that support the actual photo
taking. This can include printing, retouching, offering video services, or
maybe even totally technically unrelated things like offering make overs to
client in portrait shoots. This added value is what keeps many small businesses
a float.
So coming back to ‘commercial value as a form of image
quality’, I think it’s valid to say that this is very much within the domain of
my research. The paying public, and progressively businesses as well, are
changing their perception on what they find valuable. Put simply: just being
able to take crisp sharp professional looking photos isn’t valuable enough
anymore. The public can do it themselves or ask others to do it for cheaper or
for free. The qualities that add value now have nothing to do with taking the
picture, and everything to do with the picture that’s being taken.
Photographers need to no longer be technical experts, but more artistic
visionaries. Knowing this is absolutely key to envisaging the cameras and
equipment of the future. Designing a camera that focuses less on the
photographers interaction with the cameras technicalities, and more on the
thing you are photographing could be the key to providing photographers with
the modern day tools to create photos with true commercially valuable image
quality.
Now that I have a clear understanding of how the photographic
profession works today, it is time to consider how it is going to work in the
future. To do this, rather than guessing and contemplating, I am going to look
back in time a little and see if there are any lessons that can learn from the
past.
The root driving force behind the identified changes in the
professional industry is the shift from film to digital. Photography at its
core is simply a method of image capture, and film and digital are merely the
modern image capturing mediums we currently use. This hasn’t always been the
case. If we look back through history, there have been many dominant mediums
used to capture images; from the earliest cave drawings, hieroglyphics and the
birth of written language, all the way through to drawings and paintings. Each
of these mediums have required skill and expertise to utilise, and so there
have always been professions tied to each one of them. Between the reign of
each of these dominant mediums there will have been a period of transition,
where a new medium slowly becomes more favoured over another as the default
choice for capturing imagery.
Let’s look at the shift from paintings to film photography
as a historical example. Back in the early 1800’s, if a family wanted a
portrait of themselves they would have turned to a master painter and arranged
a commission. These commissions would have been expensive, relative to the high
level of craftsmanship required by the painter to paint such an image.
Consequently only the wealthiest of families would have been able to afford the
service. With the early development of film photography, painters will have
witnessed trade increasingly moving from them to the new breed of photographers
who could use their comparatively faster services to produce stunningly
accurate portraits. As development continued and the use of new chemicals made
the dark room processes faster and cheaper, film photography gradually took
over and became the dominant for of image capture. With a lower cost the new
medium will have been attractive to not just the wealth families, but others as
well. You can imagine painters of the day cursing the new wave of
photographers, much like has been documented here concerning the shift from
film to digital, for effectively putting them out of business.
Eventually film photography took over, and painting became
out-dated. Cameras started to reach the masses thanks to mechanical automations
such as roll films and electronic meters and film winders. The medium continued
to develop and mature, while painting faded from a commercial profession into a
lesser used artist’s medium. As we can see now, painters are firmly in the
domain of artists, with paintings produced today carrying very little business
commercial value. So the medium never faded into obscurity, but instead
utilised by enthusiasts as a gradual transformation caused the previously
widely accepted commercial tool to become an artistic medium. The commercial
profession surrounding painting dyed, but the medium most certainly lives on.
Transition
Period
|
Transition
Period
|
|||
(eg.) Painting
|
||||
Film
Photography
|
||||
Digital
Photography
|
||||
Timeline >>
|
||||
Now let’s look again at the shift we are experiencing at the
moment. There are many similarities between the shift between paintings and
film and the shift between film and digital. Each time a new image capturing
medium is invented or brought into the public domain, there is a transition
period. Right now we are at the end of the transition period from film
photography to digital. The digital revolution and rise of computers from the
1950’s through to now have caused extremely fast development of digital camera
equipment. The very first digital camera was commercially marketed and sold in
1989 (Fuji DS-X) at a cost of $20,000. Over the period of 20 years, digital
cameras were rapidly developed and ended up invading nearly every household in
the developed world, completely replacing film. This is an astonishingly fast
transition period, and has been the source of most of the problems.
Fuji DS-X (1989) – First hand held memory card camera
You see, photographers who were taught with and have used
film for their profession are still alive. In fact, not only are they alive,
they aren’t even very old; most of them still practise. How has this had an
effect on the transition between mediums? Well film photographers were taught
in a certain way, and conduct their business in a certain way, and they are
struggling to change to the digital era. It’s not as simple as swapping a film
camera for a digital one. Photographers are still projecting film era
expectations of what the value of professional photography is into the digital
age. Digital is a new format, which requires an entirely new set of
expectations and principles. Elder photographers, and even new digital
photographers who have learnt from either material like books and articles
written by film era photographers, or from elder mentors themselves, carry an
out dated set of expectations about how business should be conducted and how
much they should be paid.
Digital photography provides high quality photos, yet it is
cheap, highly accessible, and constantly developing. As such, the new
profession surrounding the digital medium will be exactly the same. This change
cannot be stopped, and it is this which is causing all the arguments I have
discussed here. The industry needs to let go of the film era business models,
and embrace a more flexible and dynamic future. In the past, transitions have
taken place over 50-100 years, much much slower, but with film changing to
digital within a single generation, professionals really have to think fast and
be willing to reinvent their businesses plans to remain competitive. After all,
from history we know that film will fade away and become an artist’s medium
(something we are already witnessing), and although digital is yet to mature,
it is guaranteed to in the future and swan a completely new profession.
So if the profession surrounding digital photography is yet
to mature, what can we predict for the future? What are the image qualities
that will define the monetary value of an image in tomorrow’s profession?
Change is gradual and never stops. As identified, freelance
photographers feel threatened and are seeing their business slowing down, so it
is vital for these professionals to make immediate short term changes to remain
competitive in an ever expanding and crowded market place. The most obvious
immediate shift is from still to motion capture. In specialisations such as
wedding, product, advertising, sport, and journalism, there is an increasing
demand for video alongside still photographs. This ties in with the public’s
perception of value. Taking high quality still photos is within reach of nearly
everyone, but as of yet the difficulties of taking good video (particularly
keeping video stable and not shaky) are yet to be solved in consumer devices.
The public cannot easily take professional video, and as such video still
carries high value. As the clients start to demand video, and photographers
start to diversify into video capture, the camera and equipment manufacturers
are starting to cater for them. For example, building on the success of the
video features being introduced into their line of DSLRs, Canon have recently
designed an entirely new product range of professional standard video cameras
and lenses. This is an effort to reduce the high cost of entry into the video
production market, which has previously been incredibly expensive with TV and
Cine products costing tens of thousands of pounds per item.
Canon
EOS Cinema line of affordable professional video cameras
Recording video greatly expands what can be captured in an
image. The inclusion of sound, panning views, and movement add new dynamics
that can be creatively exploited. Indie film makers are demonstrating that
films can be made on a low budget, and as professional quality video filters
down into cheaper equipment, it is likely that we will see motion in a huge
range of imaging applications and specialisations, including advertisements in
online newspapers, short moving photos of events, etc. The concept has been
used in films for a while, such as the
newspaper in Harry Potter, or the advertisements in shop windows in Minority
Report, so it isn’t difficult to imagine video becoming embedded into places
previously dominated by stills a lot more in the future.
If motion video is the immediate future of commercial
photography, what comes after? At first it seems like an irrelevant question,
after all I’m designing a product for now, not for a time decades in the
future. However, recent history teaches us that the development of digital is
fast. Video is valuable in the short term because the general public can’t and
don’t do it themselves to a professional standard. But with the pace of digital
development, and clear signs that big manufacturers like Canon are on board
with taking video development seriously, it isn’t hard to envisage that video
may be easy to record to a pro standard in the future. How long until prosumer
and then consumer cameras will be able to take shake free crisp colour rich
video? Well that isn’t for me to answer, but knowing it won’t be too far off, I
need to consider the future beyond this to imagine what photography is really
going to become.
As discussed already, we know that photography is becoming
less and less about the process and more and more about the content. I envisage
this will be a continuing trend in the future. Technology is guaranteed to
progress year on year, and cameras and equipment will continue to become more
automated and produce photos of higher technical image quality. This makes me
believe that qualitative image quality will be the future. Technically perfect
photos will be default in the future. To add value, the photographer needs to
forget the camera and concentrate on the subject. Each photographer will tell
you their own opinion on what they are trying to say with their photos; each
will have a philosophical stand point about what they are trying to show in
their images. Be it the feeling of love and belonging in a wedding photo, or a
feeling of sympathy and anger at journalistic war photos, every photographer
has a message to spread.
Could emulating human vision and capturing the feelings of the
photographer be the next step in adding commercial value to photos?
This brings us back to a very fundamental question; what is
photography? Photography is a form of image capture, and image capture is a
form of communication. To me, the future of the industry lies in being able to
communicate more effectively. As technical quantitative image quality
increases, there becomes less and less room for a still photo to communicate
more. Video then steps in, and adds the ability to record sound and motion.
After this, I think the key will be adding emotion, the emotion and vision of
the photographer himself, by emulating exactly what he sees. Capturing images
as the human eye sees them, removing the boarders to the image, and creating a
true sense of immersion within the photos. Image the commercial value of images
which could immerse the viewer in a scene captured by a camera. What changes
would it bring about to advertising? How would it change our perception of
journalism? Immersion could be the next step in removing the barrier that is
the 2 foot between our eyes and the photo. Bringing the photo into the full
vision of the viewer could help communicate the vision and emotions that the
photographer is trying to communicate.
