(no subject)
Kazza Mcb is the value of photography falling.. and are amateurs helping to ruin the industry... http://bit.ly/1C4jFP
Rick 'Glaz' Cummings
the value of everything is falling Karen. It's tragic.
Thu at 12:11pm
John Worrall
Nearly everyone has a computer and a digital camera now adays.... ushering in an era of DIY where people take their own photos, design their own business cards etc. I have lost count of how many Microsoft Word files I have had to fix from clients with poor layout, out of focus, low resolution pictures and contain the fonts comic sans or even more comic sans :-) It is tragic.
Fri at 3:00am
John Mcmurtrie
...but no talent!
Fri at 4:13am
Stuart Nicholls
All professionals begin as amateurs. Maybe, and this is just a thought, photography has always been overpriced, and people got used to it and paid it. Now it is lowering to it's more practical price. Also, the value of photography has to compete with the value of everything else. As the price of everything lowers, unfortunately, so does photography, after all, you can only charge what people are willing/can afford to pay.
Fri at 5:47am
--------------------
I looked the article over and have been considering it. Also looking into what I would call the glut of artists. We are in a period that has been talked about in terms of the rise of the creative class.
Technology has always had an impact. Before the development of photography you had painters and engravers. Photography had a great impact upon them. There was an anxiety that painting was in decline. The 1900's saw painters pushing the limit's of their art into new forms and shifting from the solon forms to the realism presented by the photographers.
I would even say that the music industry has been experiencing a similar transformation also as equipment has developed and become easier to access. There has been a glut of rock bands emerging. Sure there is plenty of argument over the quality. ... Read More
There certainly is a glut of images being produced and of course free market economists will argue that the competition is good for the consumer by driving prices down and quality up. Competition is the considered to be the driving force in economic decision making. ...
Just thinking out loud but there will always be the few who float to stellar levels, it is not always a fair thing either. Many talented people have gone over looked. I mean there are many who have risen because of connections. Certainly the wealthy can afford to backroll a talented son or daughter. I don't want to debate that that's been going on for ever.
But this trend with stock photos and amateur photographers has been happening for the past 20+ years and the rapid advances in digital technology seem to be accelerating it. Also as you noted, social networking or Net 2.0 and it's attachment to the gift economy.
Does it ruin things? I am just throwing these thoughts out there for you. I am considering the where too from here? Not just in photography. Obviously no one's going to blow the whistle and force everyone out of the pool. The nature of our culture at the moment is just going to encourage movement in this direction. There will be some equilibrium point it's not like photography will lose all value, just like painting didn't lose all value. There were plenty of people in the 60's pronouncing art as dead....
There is also a clash of cultures and economic models prevalent too. Take the Web 2.0 and Gift Economy model, like Flickr. It clashes with the Free market economic model. Look at it this way. The gift economy model has a similarity to socialism. The free market model is capitalism. The free market model says increase competition, drive prices down and quality up. The gift economy model says reduce competition and encourage, communication, sharing and trading as a way to drive prices down and quality up. The argument against it is that prices go down but quality doesn't go up, and it sets up a favor for a favor, works fine in small communities but not in large scale societies -- there is no way to keep track of millions of favors without losing efficiency. (think of it this way if you are Rock Star, do you really want millions of paparazzi around all the time?) Therefore using money, fair pricing, and eliminating the personal component from exchanges is seen by capitalism as far more efficient.... there is an equilibrium, actually there are more than one... Just putting that out there for you to consider.
Thanks for the link and it's certainly something to give thought too. One unfortunate thing has also been the decline of print media in the digital age. You fine owners cutting corners everywhere.... Like I said just thinking about it.
Rick 'Glaz' Cummings
the value of everything is falling Karen. It's tragic.
Thu at 12:11pm
John Worrall
Nearly everyone has a computer and a digital camera now adays.... ushering in an era of DIY where people take their own photos, design their own business cards etc. I have lost count of how many Microsoft Word files I have had to fix from clients with poor layout, out of focus, low resolution pictures and contain the fonts comic sans or even more comic sans :-) It is tragic.
Fri at 3:00am
John Mcmurtrie
...but no talent!
Fri at 4:13am
Stuart Nicholls
All professionals begin as amateurs. Maybe, and this is just a thought, photography has always been overpriced, and people got used to it and paid it. Now it is lowering to it's more practical price. Also, the value of photography has to compete with the value of everything else. As the price of everything lowers, unfortunately, so does photography, after all, you can only charge what people are willing/can afford to pay.
Fri at 5:47am
--------------------
I looked the article over and have been considering it. Also looking into what I would call the glut of artists. We are in a period that has been talked about in terms of the rise of the creative class.
Technology has always had an impact. Before the development of photography you had painters and engravers. Photography had a great impact upon them. There was an anxiety that painting was in decline. The 1900's saw painters pushing the limit's of their art into new forms and shifting from the solon forms to the realism presented by the photographers.
I would even say that the music industry has been experiencing a similar transformation also as equipment has developed and become easier to access. There has been a glut of rock bands emerging. Sure there is plenty of argument over the quality. ... Read More
There certainly is a glut of images being produced and of course free market economists will argue that the competition is good for the consumer by driving prices down and quality up. Competition is the considered to be the driving force in economic decision making. ...
Just thinking out loud but there will always be the few who float to stellar levels, it is not always a fair thing either. Many talented people have gone over looked. I mean there are many who have risen because of connections. Certainly the wealthy can afford to backroll a talented son or daughter. I don't want to debate that that's been going on for ever.
But this trend with stock photos and amateur photographers has been happening for the past 20+ years and the rapid advances in digital technology seem to be accelerating it. Also as you noted, social networking or Net 2.0 and it's attachment to the gift economy.
Does it ruin things? I am just throwing these thoughts out there for you. I am considering the where too from here? Not just in photography. Obviously no one's going to blow the whistle and force everyone out of the pool. The nature of our culture at the moment is just going to encourage movement in this direction. There will be some equilibrium point it's not like photography will lose all value, just like painting didn't lose all value. There were plenty of people in the 60's pronouncing art as dead....
There is also a clash of cultures and economic models prevalent too. Take the Web 2.0 and Gift Economy model, like Flickr. It clashes with the Free market economic model. Look at it this way. The gift economy model has a similarity to socialism. The free market model is capitalism. The free market model says increase competition, drive prices down and quality up. The gift economy model says reduce competition and encourage, communication, sharing and trading as a way to drive prices down and quality up. The argument against it is that prices go down but quality doesn't go up, and it sets up a favor for a favor, works fine in small communities but not in large scale societies -- there is no way to keep track of millions of favors without losing efficiency. (think of it this way if you are Rock Star, do you really want millions of paparazzi around all the time?) Therefore using money, fair pricing, and eliminating the personal component from exchanges is seen by capitalism as far more efficient.... there is an equilibrium, actually there are more than one... Just putting that out there for you to consider.
Thanks for the link and it's certainly something to give thought too. One unfortunate thing has also been the decline of print media in the digital age. You fine owners cutting corners everywhere.... Like I said just thinking about it.