http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly … 71,00.html (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2070571,00.html)

Nice article from a global perspective. But the local market is different. Far from that gloomy article, we are only starting to feel these effects. From an economic point of view, still very few could afford these type of equipment. Can you imagine the if more people, say, double the current number of users could afford these gear.

These amatuers are still trying to learn the ropes as well, as least on the business side of it. The learning curve in photography has become so short with the birth of digital. Tha above article assumes that its an end all dead end. Professionals, or at least those affected by it, can use the law to institutionalize standards, technically, and "professionally" influence it.

While equipment has been taught much of those techniques that used to be developed in a photographer, there are still a lot that it has not been taught, can you try to think of several things? There you may find the answers to this concern. Again, read between the lines, and listen to what is not said.....

Very good article and nice post Rudy. The article echoes my opinions well. Other implications are:

1. There is no money to be made in stock photography. Not enough for a living anyway. There is even most likely no money to be made in photography (taking pictures) in general.

2. Most photographs are worthless -- from a purely economic point of view. It follows that your photos can be easily copied, and you can't do anything about it.

There are others, but these are just two worth mentioning at the moment.

interesting article. there are certain realities in it that holds true to many professionals. but i wouldn't go as far as making a 'blanket statement' that it's the 'End' for those making a living off of photography. the world is constantly changing. the evolution that's happening to photography nowadays is no different than those that happened in the years past.

the point is, as photography evolves, so does the business side of it. as technology becomes more affordable to more people, the more people are likely to try their hands on photography. in my personal opinion, this doesn't immediately become a threat to the industry. instead, you actually have more people who understand why photographers have to charge so much since their gear cost a lot. this also makes people realize that it's not JUST the gear, but TALENT is a huge component in producing great shots!

to some degree, i agree that PRO's have a lot more competition to deal with nowadays. but i also believe that those that gets left behind are the ones who 'refuse' to accept the changes. come to think of it, the world needs more photographers now more than ever. why? photography is no longer limited to film & paper as it's medium; we no longer have just one sports & news network that require hundreds of PJ's; we have more products now that requires photographing for both film and other media. there are dozens more but the short end of it is.... we've got more photographers now (both Pros & aspiring) BUT we also a tremendous increase in demand for them.

in my opinion, photography is still a viable profession just as long as you stay in-sync with times.

photography is still a viable profession just as long as you stay in-sync with times.

This goes out to anything new that comes out every so often. Cliche as it may sound, change is still one of the few things in life that is constant. And adapting to such will so only lead to the much-known suvival of the fittest.

It's true -- there is so much waste photos taken by amateur photographers; and in contrast, a better "hit rate" from the professionals, which, in the article, is referred to as the "usable" ones. Is the level of competition that alarming then? Yes, but to a negligible degree, I believe. And even if, for argument's sake, the playing field is leveled, it could only lead to a much evolved quality of worthwhile photographs.

As I've learned in life, based on what a high school teacher said, "there is always room on top." And the room is not for someone who's easily daunted by the ever-changing environment. It's for that amateur or professional, or even hobbyist, who's always looking for ways to differentiate himself from the pack.

As I've learned in life, based on what a high school teacher said, "there is always room on top." And the room is not for someone who's easily daunted by the ever-changing environment. It's for that amateur or professional, or even hobbyist, who's always looking for ways to differentiate himself from the pack.

I agree.

Incidentally, this article reminds me of two incidents:

1) When studio musicians in the States became highly annoyed when dance music producers began to favor synthesizers and drum machines in most of their recording projects.

2) The sentiments expressed by some wire service photojournalists who balk at being handed high definition videocams instead of dSLRS to do their assignments. CNN, for one, used to feature a still photo but now a video segment on its site's main page.

Times are a changing and will always be so; one must be able to adapt to such in order to remain among the top in his field.

survival of the fittest.....

i don't think there will be a total demise of professional photographers. but with more hobbyist getting hold of dslr and getting more confident in getting good pictures, i won't be surprised if these hobbyists will be the proud parents who will taking the wedding pictures of their children.

survival of the fittest.....

Totally Agree... If you're not that good, you're screwed.... Well, for fotogs who can't keep up, maybe it would be wise to look for other "greener" fields... :(

"Perhaps none of these people could make a living as a photographer, but few want to. Any money they make is gravy for them - and bread taken from the mouths of professionals."

This simply means the market has changed. If we assume things will progress for the better, then we can be sure that the products and services we offer now will cost less and less as time goes by.

Nols

I like the odds... Only the best photographers will remain and surface then.

One thing: we live in the "Information Age".

before there were only schools, mentors, and experience..
now there are books, magazines, training videos, digital cameras, and the World Wide Web.

Those who want to learn photography as hobbyist, and even as professionals can do so in less time and less spendings.

Before, only those who really want to get serious in photography and willing to spend so much on rolls of films were able to master their craft and establish themselves in the industry.

but with the advent of digital photography, those who can afford to buy a decent gear/equipment have the luxury of honing their skills with their itchy fingers. From point & shooter to hobbyist to professional photographer, the learning curve nowadays is really fast.

But the thing is, it doesn't happen only to the industry of photography. Many other skills/professions are acquired and learnt in a short phase because of the unlimited sources of, and access to information.

I think the demise of professional photographers will only be caused by themselves and not the industry. Professional photography has been here for centuries and since has evolved and revolutionized, and it will always be that way.

"Photographers will come and go but not great photographs."

And I think if you can make yourself to be at par with the best.. no worries.

Darwin spoke of the survival of the fittest, and he did say that the fittest ones are not the strongest or the most intelligent, but those who can cope with change. I believe that this is true of any endeavor, photography included.

Once, I worried about a daughter who was very focused on computers, and to express my concern, I asked her what she would do if computers became obsolete. She said "Don't worry, Mom, I will be with whatever will replace computers." Learning a lesson from her, I say, we will be studying whatever will replace cameras or photography -for such are only tools and methods. We should never forget that the ultimate goal is to create images. :)

As for professional photography - for as long as not everybody is inclined to be a photographer, or not as good as professional photographers, there is room for those who will create images for a fee.

Interesting insights. I'd like to share a few more.

1. Photography, as a profession, has not changed, IMV - the process output, which is the image, still remains. The type of image required will depend on the image's objective/s.

2. What has changed is the way the business is conducted - technology continues to have a major impact on the demand supply situation, entry barriers, value proposition and productivity. Process change has affected both the image supplier and the image user.

3. The challenge for the existing professional is to adapt his business model such that his value proposition still makes sense for his market. Hence, a complete re-evaluation of his value chain becomes important - this would include his product offering, process flow and process integration with the client, to client service.

4. Sadly, mindsets of most professionals rarely extend to the business side. Most focus on image creation. This thinking has to be expanded for their continued business survival.

5. I read an article covering an interview of Arnold Newman sometime back. Newman observed that a lot of young guys entering the photography business and buying new and expensive gears were folding. He mused that they probably thought that once they build a studio, the business will come, which was not often enough. I think the same thing will happen today. As more are tempted to enter the business due to a "shorter" learning curve, they will find that it will require more that good pictures to succeed. By then, they have already mortgaged the house. ;)