Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct

[Steve Axford]

I personally think you're underestimating technology and how quickly the progression of technology will impact things. When you consider how quickly a phone manufacturer can die in the market (at the peak of the Nokia invasion, if someone told you in 5 years time that Apple and Samsung would be the biggest phone manufacturers, people would have called it out as bull), I think we can only assume that cameras will undergo similar changes. We have smile detection, eye detection, pre-focus and cameras taking photos before and after you take the photo to make sure that you get the perfect photo. They already have scene recognition to identify landscape, portrait, night etc. That's just the start. How long do you think it will be before a camera has the technology capability to look at a scene, identify the best possible crop, and tell the user the angle is wrong based on rules like thirds, parallel lines etc? 5 years is a long time in technology, 20 years is a lifetime. If someone isn't already working on it, they will be soon.

This may all happen for the average person's photographs, but the very best? I doubt that.
I worked with high end computers for most of my working life. I do understand technology and I use it, but what you imply is a human brain in a computer. When that happens, we will no longer be required. That will not happen in 5 or 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -

But, Steve. Where, then, do you put FB, Twitter, and other other recent social plagues?

MM's prognosis is as valid as any. I think Asimov was only partly right. It will be "We, Robots"

Whats FB got to do with it? And why do you think it's a social plague?

[ameerat42]

Well, first it was the (ancient) Egyptians, and now it's our turn

[Steve Axford]

Well, first it was the (ancient) Egyptians, and now it's our turn

You will have to explain that.
By the way, I am still waiting for your promised apology. It seems that here you are supporting the negative view and that seems to be ok.

[MissionMan]

This may all happen for the average person's photographs, but the very best? I doubt that.
I worked with high end computers for most of my working life. I do understand technology and I use it, but what you imply is a human brain in a computer. When that happens, we will no longer be required. That will not happen in 5 or 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -



Whats FB got to do with it? And why do you think it's a social plague?

Who hires the best. People already hire amateurs for weddings so what makes you think they would hire the best if technology allowed them to get most of what they want.

Computers already have incredibly brainpower. They can beat people in chess and they've probably already reached a point of beating the top chess masters in the world. What makes you think they couldn't beat 99.99999% of photographers in 20 years time? They can do facial recognition faster than a human can do it. The thing with photographs is they are similar so the ability of a computer to look at a scene, identify 1000 variations of the similar photos to find the top 10 options of what it considers best practice from a photographic perspective would not be that hard now, never mind in 20 years time. It could do hundreds if not thousands of calculations in the time it takes you to decide what shutter speed to use.

[Steve Axford]

Who hires the best. People already hire amateurs for weddings so what makes you think they would hire the best if technology allowed them to get most of what they want.

Computers already have incredibly brainpower. They can beat people in chess and they've probably already reached a point of beating the top chess masters in the world. What makes you think they couldn't beat 99.99999% of photographers in 20 years time? They can do facial recognition faster than a human can do it. The thing with photographs is they are similar so the ability of a computer to look at a scene, identify 1000 variations of the similar photos to find the top 10 options of what it considers best practice from a photographic perspective would not be that hard now, never mind in 20 years time. It could do hundreds if not thousands of calculations in the time it takes you to decide what shutter speed to use.

I think you are confusing wedding photographers with the best photographers, but since you mention them, let's look at wedding photos. Good wedding photos rely on the photographers interaction with the wedding party as much as it does technically good photography. Are you suggesting that a smartphone will interact with humans as well as a human? When they happens, who needs a spouse. Just marry your smartphone.

Computers have been able to beat the best chess players for 20 years already, but chess involves no judgement as to beauty. It is just numbers. Try to define the rule of thirds so it applies to any photograph. And then remember that a really good photographer will be able to look at the result and decide if it works or not. How is a computer going to do that? How do you define how the Mona Lisa works? People have been trying ever since it was painted.

[MissionMan]

I think you are confusing wedding photographers with the best photographers, but since you mention them, let's look at wedding photos. Good wedding photos rely on the photographers interaction with the wedding party as much as it does technically good photography. Are you suggesting that a smartphone will interact with humans as well as a human? When they happens, who needs a spouse. Just marry your smartphone.

Computers have been able to beat the best chess players for 20 years already, but chess involves no judgement as to beauty. It is just numbers. Try to define the rule of thirds so it applies to any photograph. And then remember that a really good photographer will be able to look at the result and decide if it works or not. How is a computer going to do that? How do you define how the Mona Lisa works? People have been trying ever since it was painted.

Nope, I'm using that as an example. I'm suggesting a computer will be able to tell you what focal length is correct to achieve the right crop, whether the angle is wrong, whether you need to move or the angle needs to change, what aperture would be best and in 20 years it would be able to do that in a second or less, or far less time than it would take for a human to evaluate the same situation because a human doesn't have the capacity to compare the current frame to thousands (or potentially millions) of stock award winning photos. It would be able to produce the best photos by simple replicating what it takes to get the best photos and comparing a given situation to it's stock library of the best photos. And that excludes the idea that AI will occur, because if and when that occurs, computers will have the capacity to learn faster than a person can and that would mean that they could eclipse even the best photographers. So for a given situation, it may not produce something unique but it could produce something brilliant.

And by that stage, you could probably even get a robot of sorts to direct the people so you may not even need someone to tell you where to stand and how to stand. It would be able to understand in an instant whether everyone in the photo was sharp or whether there was movement by one person in a group shot. It could be able to take a photo far quicker and potentially avoid missing a photo because it wasn't quick enough with the shutter.

So yes, I am saying that in 20 years, we could be replaceable.

[ameerat42]

Promised apology? [What P Hanson often asks.]

[Steve Axford]

Nope, I'm using that as an example. I'm suggesting a computer will be able to tell you what focal length is correct to achieve the right crop, whether the angle is wrong, whether you need to move or the angle needs to change, what aperture would be best and in 20 years it would be able to do that in a second or less, or far less time than it would take for a human to evaluate the same situation because a human doesn't have the capacity to compare the current frame to thousands (or potentially millions) of stock award winning photos. It would be able to produce the best photos by simple replicating what it takes to get the best photos and comparing a given situation to it's stock library of the best photos. And that excludes the idea that AI will occur, because if and when that occurs, computers will have the capacity to learn faster than a person can and that would mean that they could eclipse even the best photographers. So for a given situation, it may not produce something unique but it could produce something brilliant.

And by that stage, you could probably even get a robot of sorts to direct the people so you may not even need someone to tell you where to stand and how to stand. It would be able to understand in an instant whether everyone in the photo was sharp or whether there was movement by one person in a group shot. It could be able to take a photo far quicker and potentially avoid missing a photo because it wasn't quick enough with the shutter.

So yes, I am saying that in 20 years, we could be replaceable.

I think you miss the point that photography is a communication. It is a performance. The story really does mean something and computers don't write stories.
If you treat your photography as a purely mechanical thing where a computer could do it for you, then I suspect that you well never be a good photographer. I would love for the automatic aspects of a camera to improve. That way I could just focus on on the human aspects, but I suspect that even in 5 or 20 years time that there will still be technical things that we have to do. I don't work out the best settings on a camera because I love doing that bit. I do it because I have to. I usually spend far more time thinking about and finding the best time and place for the photograph I want, than I do working out the technicalities of the camera or other equipment. As soon as one thing becomes automatic then the photographers (or any other tool user) will move on to more complex things. We discover and then do new things. Computers don't. They just do what they were programmed to do. To do totally new things requires a computer that can rewire itself to become something new - like us. Perhaps biological computers will eventually be made, but to think that will happen in the next 20 years is just dreaming. We are far more complex than any of our electronic computers.
I can see that one day a computer loaded with a stock library of "good" photos being able to take endless copies of them. That may improve the quality of the average holiday snap, but will hardy replace even the good wedding photographer.

- - - Updated - - -

Promised apology? [What P Hanson often asks.]

Is that a comparison?

[ameerat42]

To explain, she often says "Please explain."
Now, if you read any sort of slight in that post (#27), please note that there isn't one/never has been one/never will be one.
I also can disagree with views. But again, what apology did I promise? (Aside: I never promise anything, but to proceed...)
Was it somewhere in this thread?

[Steve Axford]

To explain, she often says "Please explain."
Now, if you read any sort of slight in that post (#27), please note that there isn't one/never has been one/never will be one.
I also can disagree with views. But again, what apology did I promise? (Aside: I never promise anything, but to proceed...)
Was it somewhere in this thread?

You wrote this in the thread on Why post on AP?

"I'm way past posting pictures here because I get the response I want elsewhere."
(Apologies for the words used.)
As such - and this is how it seems to me - it rather serves to put you in an "elitist" position.

If I am wrong, please say so, and I will furnish due apologies.

[ameerat42]

I will go and look at that thread. So far, I do not see your point.
I will continue any reply there.

[William W]

. . . My comments maybe lack some clarity :-) Pocket money was probably a bad choice of words. In reality I need a retirement job to ensure my super lasts me.

If that is a serious statement then I advise you look at the realities of Photography (per se) as a business. I think it will be a struggle to start from scratch and make a business of 'photography' as the means of a consistent and modestly reliable income.

***

having worked in IT for the last 24 yrs, the only other skill I have is photography

If your statement about a 'retirement job' is serious: then even more seriously is that I suggest that you re-consider this statement about your skill-set.

I was fortunate enough to be involved in a nation-wide retraining program involving cut-over from Analog to Digital News-media Workflow. One notable outcome was middle aged men (as a statistic) did not survive the retraining and were culled from the workforce: they clung onto what was their perception of their skill sets predicated upon what were the primary skills that they USED on a day to day basis – and they neither acknowledged nor accessed their total skill set which they had accumulated throughout a lifetime of work and life experiences.

I very much doubt that your only skill, other than IT, is photography.

***

close to turning 60 once I leave my current role there is no IT opportunities at my age "We are called the un-employable"

Indeed. I am 62 and I couldn’t give one stuff what I am ‘called’ . . .

***

So my plan is to attempt to move into photography, its something I love and not wanting to make a million my goal would be to earn a top up living salary to my pension.

Caution mixing ‘love’ with ‘business’.

To be blunt, (if you want blunt advice) you are already falling into a trap that likely will cause demise (of the business) . . .

your words “my plan is to attempt to move into photography” . . .

whatever you choose to do, do not plan to attempt, plan to do.

If you do not seek blunt advice, then please excuse and ignore this commentary.

***

Not sure weddings would be the top pick for myself and was more planning maybe a small home studio and on site portrait shoots including equine photography (equine portrait) that I already do a small amount of.

Expanding your Equine Photography might be a very good idea: it might render an 'hobby' which pays for itself and accomplishes some incidental revenue for a ripper night out each fortnight. . .

. . . continued below . .

. . . My idea is to try and find the gap between the bottom of the market and the top of the market with an aim to earn 20-30K a yr to keep my life comfortable in retirement and allow me to maintain my gear.

Don’t confuse what is an 'hobby' of sorts (be it a bit of Portraiture or Horses or a few Weddings here and there) with a ‘business’ which has “an aim to earn 20-30K a yr”.

If you want a photography business which nets to you earnings of 30K per annum, then, in approximate round figures and ignoring tax implications (if any) apropos your superannuation pension - then your business will need to turn over at least $50,000.

If extensive travel and/or unusual location/equipment insurance and/or extra capital purchases are necessary then add another $10 to 20K.

That in my opinion would be a ‘nice’ turnover for a small sole-trader business that it appears you are seeking.

However, if there are any other outgoings, especially (other) tax implications pursuant to your superannuation pension and those outgoings require a bump up of your business turnover beyond the $75,000 per annum threshold, then that is a whole new ballgame.

*

So let’s assume (conservatively) that you need to T/O $50,000 to an get additional $30K in your kick.

How many Horses is that?
How many Weddings is that?
How many Portrait Shots
How many Table Top shoots is that?

I am ignorant of Equine Photography: I have no contacts there either, but if a session averages $2500 then you’ll need 20 per year.

If you are ‘time rich’, then it doesn’t much matter if one session takes three hours or six hours and equally it doesn’t matter much of the prep and the post take a bit longer as it is not that you will be working the business on a strict rate per hour – but nonetheless, I think that you would not would want to be working a whole week (40~50 hours) to complete ‘one session’ to gross $2500.

*

Your friend’s baby/portraiture photography is an interesting analogy. She probably has created (by accident or design) a NICHE and is also located in an AREA where that niche is contagious especially within her NETWORKS, hence the business has created a TRIBE.

I suggest you think if you have that AREA and NETWORKS and a possible TRIBE in the Genre of Equine Photography.

*

Weddings & Portraiture, I have both experience and knowledge. I have shot more than 1500 weddings; managed my own company and also a large wedding/portrait studio. I terminated all my holdings and interests in the wedding photography business a few years ago (around 2012). I held on to the idea of niche marketing and creating a niche wedding photography business for my own company, which we trialed as Portraiture only and I kept up Commissioned Portraiture until only a couple of years ago. The trial of my niche Portrait Idea was successful, but after serious thought and considering the W&P trends in the USA, we choose not to continue with redesigning a our wedding photography business and sold up and got out.

You mention that you wouldn’t want to be a $600 shooter.

My view is there are generally three tiers of Wedding Shooters in AUS - based upon price. Broadly:
$100 to $1000
$1001 to $3000
$3001 above

If we did that same snapshot ten years ago it would look like this:
$999 to $2000
$2001 to $5000
$5001 above

Objective evidence seems to support my view. Trends in the USA also support this view.

The point is, the middle is being squeezed, and the squeezing is at an increasing rate over time.

So if you want to get into weddings (as a business) I think you need to be in the top price bracket - and not at the lower end of that bracket – and if you get in there you need to have a niche and a USP. The same logic applies if you take up Portraiture Sessions.


On the other hand if you are time rich and don’t work on a must have hourly rate and you want to keep up the hobby/business, then: four weddings per year at $5000 each (or a dozen Portrait Sessions at $1500 each) in addition to a dozen horse sessions at $2500 each, might just be the hobby/business that is: interesting, manageable, occupies just enough time, but without being cramped and intrusive into your relaxation time.

Good luck.

WW

[MissionMan]

I think you miss the point that photography is a communication. It is a performance. The story really does mean something and computers don't write stories.
If you treat your photography as a purely mechanical thing where a computer could do it for you, then I suspect that you well never be a good photographer. I would love for the automatic aspects of a camera to improve. That way I could just focus on on the human aspects, but I suspect that even in 5 or 20 years time that there will still be technical things that we have to do. I don't work out the best settings on a camera because I love doing that bit. I do it because I have to. I usually spend far more time thinking about and finding the best time and place for the photograph I want, than I do working out the technicalities of the camera or other equipment. As soon as one thing becomes automatic then the photographers (or any other tool user) will move on to more complex things. We discover and then do new things. Computers don't. They just do what they were programmed to do. To do totally new things requires a computer that can rewire itself to become something new - like us. Perhaps biological computers will eventually be made, but to think that will happen in the next 20 years is just dreaming. We are far more complex than any of our electronic computers.
I can see that one day a computer loaded with a stock library of "good" photos being able to take endless copies of them. That may improve the quality of the average holiday snap, but will hardy replace even the good wedding photographer.

- - - Updated - - -



Is that a comparison?

Its not whether photography is art, its whether people perceive it as art. if I gave you a machine that would allow you to put a box on a persons head and have a machine cut someone's hair to perfection, anyone can become a hairdresser with the only skill required being know how to set the machine. Hairdressing is very much an art form like photography and could become just as redundant through such a device. The problem is that not everyone wants art. They just want a photo. They don't appreciate the art behind it.

[Steve Axford]

Well, let those who don't appreciate art or stories look at computer photos. I'll bet that art and stories will not only survive, they will thrive.

[MissionMan]

Well, let those who don't appreciate art or stories look at computer photos. I'll bet that art and stories will not only survive, they will thrive.

Tell that to the book and music stores. Or Kodak. Or Nokia. How about Sony with the walkman? All of them had the markets wrapped up and thought they couldn't lose it.

But you have 20 years to prove me wrong.

[mikew09]

:-) - Wow, now thats a different take on the topic :-)

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks William - I can only say that your time spent reply is greatly valued. There is some obvious lake of personal experience in my comments and that is fair being it is the start point of what I have in mind. Good comments and some reality checks in your reply also appreciated. I never really started this thread with the intention of a reply such as your but I am apreciative of your time and detailed comment based on your vast experience.

Thanks for the valuable feed back. To be honest, its a pity you do not live locally as in getting closer to the date I would be looking to offer you to sit down over a few ales to assist me with a startup plan and stragety and such to what I plan to achieve.

Cheers,

Mike

[William W]

. . There is some obvious lake of personal experience in my comments and that is fair being it is the start point of what I have in mind. . . .

Exactly. Absolutely correct analysis of the situation. You are at the START POINT.

I think it is good that you asked a beginning type question - many people don't seek a range of views before they make big choices. Some don't even seek one other view.

I think it sis excellent that you have defined your situation most accurately "the start point of what I have in mind"- because you are now better equipped to make the best choices to plan how best manage it.

WW

[juju12jjj]

Welllllll... I know of lots of people who are now getting the more mature kids of friends to attend their weddings and do their photography.... a co-worker of mine's son started off in photography very casually as a teenager, but since he's got a great eye and real ability, plus had invested in some great camera equipment just for the love of his hobby, he's now is being asked to photograph weddings and baptisms and all sorts of events... even his holiday snaps put my photos to shame He certainly doesn't charge as much as a "professional".... However, I don't think it will be too long before he could.

and thanks to Glenda for suggesting The Shot by Gary Ramage... sounds like an interesting book to check out...

[ricktas]

Perhaps we also need to ask what everyone considers a professional photographer to be?

- Is it someone who makes a living from photography?
- Is it someone who is very good at photography?
- Is it someone who charges over a certain amount? What is that amount?
- Is it someone who is good at marketing themselves?
- is it someone with a Diploma in photo imaging or an Arts Degree?
- Is it someone who conducts themselves in a business-like manner?
- Is it something else?

juju12jjj states "he's now is being asked to photograph weddings and baptisms and all sorts of events... He certainly doesn't charge as much as a "professional".... However, I don't think it will be too long before he could".

Which makes it appear at least one member thinks a professional is someone who charges an amount or above, that amount.

Before we can decide if professional photography is becoming extinct, we have to decide and define what a professional photographer is.

[Steve Axford]

Welllllll... I know of lots of people who are now getting the more mature kids of friends to attend their weddings and do their photography.... a co-worker of mine's son started off in photography very casually as a teenager, but since he's got a great eye and real ability, plus had invested in some great camera equipment just for the love of his hobby, he's now is being asked to photograph weddings and baptisms and all sorts of events... even his holiday snaps put my photos to shame He certainly doesn't charge as much as a "professional".... However, I don't think it will be too long before he could.

and thanks to Glenda for suggesting The Shot by Gary Ramage... sounds like an interesting book to check out...

I had a friend who started out exactly like that. He took wedding photos because he liked it and people started to pay him. Eventually he gave up his day job and became a wedding photographer. It's a good way to start, and without too much risk.

Rick - good question. I know that insurance companies say that you are professional if you have ever been paid for a photo, but most of us wouldn't agree with that, particularly if we would like insurance. I looked up the meaning of professional and was left none the wiser. It would seem that "professional" can mean anything from how you are perceived to how you perceive yourself to it's your main income. I think the common definition nowdays relates to attitude and skill. Someone who acts like a professional and has the skill of a professional is a professional. That, of course, leaves the question of how does a professional act and how skillful do they need to be?
They other definition is - someone who earns their primary income from photography. It used to be a job, like plumber or journalist. I think that definition is fading as there are few jobs now for photographers in the way there used to be. That doesn't mean you can't earn money from it, just that you can't get a job as a photographer with the Herald anymore. Generally speaking, if you want to earn money as a photographer you have to work as an independent. Maybe it's taking weddings, maybe it taking landscapes (or maybe even fungi), but whatever it is it's unlikely to be with a big company.
Inevitably, there will be those who pretend to be professional when they have little claim to it.