• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Is it now easier to be a photographer?

Is it now easier to be a photographer?

January 8, 2017 JimK 2 Comments

What a set of changes has happened since, say, 1990! In 25-or-so years, we have gotten to a point where:

  • Most first-world folks carry a camera with them at all times.
  • The marginal cost of making an image is zero.
  • The number of images exposed has skyrocketed.
  • The quality of many of the ubiquitous cell-phone cameras is near the level near that of pre-WWII 35mm cameras and film. In some cases, it’s better.
  • The ease of manipulating photographs has gotten to the point where it’s become the norm. (In order for this to be true, you have to accept that picking from options is manipulation. I do.)
  • There is near-universal instant feedback about image quality right after the exposure.
  • There are powerful, instantaneous options for sharing images worldwide, and they are available to all.
  • As I pointed out here, the image editors are far more precise and capable than anything that was practical with chemicals.

With so many more folks photographing, doing it more, and using better tools, you’d think that the number of great photographers would have grown by many orders of magnitude. Some might think that it has. Don’t count me as one of those.

Yes, there are more and more people doing credible photography, so much so that the bottom has fallen out of the low (and middle) end of the professional event market, and photojournalists are beginning to seem like an endangered species. 

Yes, there are more and more people making photographic art, and, by some measures, better art. There have been improvements both in the range of ideas expressed and in technique.

But we are not awash in talented photographers in either area. There is an unbelievable amount of dreck out there. 

Why is that?

I think you get out of something what you put into it. I further think that it’s so easy to achieve colorful, well-exposed, in-focus images (maybe tarted up with pre-canned filters) that many people get to that point, think they’ve mastered photography, and stop growing. 

When the photographic experience was at root difficult, people who seriously traveled the path to mastery knew that they were going to have to spend a long time at it, and knew how little they knew. I don’t think that attitude is anywhere near as prevalent now. 

This is the second curmudgeonly post I’ve made in two days. I will try not ot make a habit of it.

 

 

The Last Word

← Power tools are dangerous Overemphasizing tools →

Comments

  1. Mike Nelson Pedde says

    January 8, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    I don’t know the author, but one of my favourite quotes regarding this is, “Why is it that when you buy a violin you own a violin, but when you buy a camera you’re a photographer?”

    I’ve been attempting to make photographs for more than 45 years now. I have no idea how many images I’ve made, but I remember the few where I can say, “Yes. This is what I was tryi g to say here.” I consider myself a photographer not because people have paid me to show up with a camera and document something but because photography informs how I see my world even when I don’t have a camera in my hands.

    Mike.

    Reply
  2. CarVac says

    January 8, 2017 at 9:33 pm

    I wonder what people would think if you showed up in 1990 with a 1Dx2 or D5 and a modern computer with editing software…

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.