Is photography dying because of the cell phone camera?

G

Gillvane

Veteran
Here's an article about it:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/dec/13/death-of-photography-camera-phones

I think some of it is true. You used to need mad skills to use older film cameras. Now if it looks good through the viewfinder, it's good. I think wedding photographers have seen downward pressure on jobs and pricing with the advent of the digital age.

I don't think this will happen with film making becuase IMHO film making is more about the cast and crew than the camera. Photography is often a photographer and an event or model, and that's all that is really required. You have a good camera, good skills, and you show up at a wedding. Tada! Great photos.

Making a Hollywood style narrative requires (again imho) make up, set design, grips, electrics, production assistants, wardrobe, actors, greens, post production, editing, color correction, special FX either practical or CGI, don't forget a good script!, and on and on. that's why it doesn't get much easier no matter how cheap the equipment may be.
 
Last edited:
David Jimerson said:
It's already happening with filmmaking.
Click to expand...


I'm only referring to narrative style movies, obviously not videos of cats in funny hats. It's definitely easier now to video your cats in funny hats with your iphone and that may very well be destroying the lovely well lit 35 mm movies we used to watch back in the day of cats in funny hats.
 
Just about everything that was said in the article you posted applies across the board to moving pictures, too.
 
Personally I take more pictures more frequently because the iPhone camera is pretty good and it's easy. I like that. It doesn't matter if the quality is even very good compared to a DSLR or point and shoot. It just has to be memorable. This applies to non-photographers as well. Capturing memories that they wouldn't have because they don't carry cameras. I'm a firm believer that great pictures are created by the person that pushes the button, so if you have a good eye then it doesn't matter what you use. Wedding photographers have to step up their game. But I don't think a guy in the tenth row will get a very good shot of the bride that will end up in the living wall. Wedding video has really matured. Some of them that I have seen are like a feature film. Very creative and memorable. Cellphone pics are a short lived medium to be consumed on Facebook and Twitter. Enjoyed in the moment. I don't think I have ever printed a iPhone pic before.
 
David Jimerson said:
Just about everything that was said in the article you posted applies across the board to moving pictures, too.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But I'm not referring to "moving pictures". I'm talking specifically about movies, a narrative that tells a story in about 2 hours or less, or 3 hours or more if you are Peter Jackson. A good 2 hour narrative generally requires a good cast and crew. A good photograph does not.
 
Erik Naso said:
Personally I take more pictures more frequently because the iPhone camera is pretty good and it's easy. I like that. It doesn't matter if the quality is even very good compared to a DSLR or point and shoot. It just has to be memorable. This applies to non-photographers as well. Capturing memories that they wouldn't have because they don't carry cameras. I'm a firm believer that great pictures are created by the person that pushes the button, so if you have a good eye then it doesn't matter what you use. Wedding photographers have to step up their game. But I don't think a guy in the tenth row will get a very good shot of the bride that will end up in the living wall. Wedding video has really matured. Some of them that I have seen are like a feature film. Very creative and memorable. Cellphone pics are a short lived medium to be consumed on Facebook and Twitter. Enjoyed in the moment. I don't think I have ever printed a iPhone pic before.
Click to expand...

Sure. But one guy with a camera can make a great, awesome, professional really cool blow you away wedding video. I am not using sarcasm here. I mean a really talented, well produced, high quality product.

One guy with a camera, no matter how good that camera is, is not going to make The Hobbit, or The Hunger Games, or probably anything that's going to make the top 100 on this list:

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013

Even found footage productions like Blair Witch need a good crew.

Could someone with a Canon 5d and a model and nothing else, take a photo that's just as good as anything you see in a magazine, like say Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition? Yes, I think they could.

If I give someone a Red Epic are they going to make the Hobbit with it all by themselves? I don't think so. Even Peter Jackson couldn't do it by himself.
 
Last edited:
Most movies aren't The Hobbit. Most people who work in production don't exclusively do major motion pictures. Most of them operate at a much lower level, and those are seeing massive cuts in every department. Even movies like that one are able to work with a smaller crew than they ever needed before. Even without considering technology, equipment or anything else, you seem to understand that people working on smaller products are seeing cuts. Those smaller products include commercials, marketing promos, corporate video and things of that nature, which are quite a bit beyond a funny cat video. If those people aren't finding work in commercials, they're applying for feature films. If those feature films now have twice the people applying for a position, they now have the power to pay less and ask more. That's just how supply and demand works. And that's how it is working today. Unions have set rates, of course, but that doesn't always apply. It's foolish to think any one industry is immune to change.
 
Cassius said:
Most movies aren't The Hobbit. Most people who work in production don't exclusively do major motion pictures. Most of them operate at a much lower level, and those are seeing massive cuts in every department. Even movies like that one are able to work with a smaller crew than they ever needed before. Even without considering technology, equipment or anything else, you seem to understand that people working on smaller products are seeing cuts. Those smaller products include commercials, marketing promos, corporate video and things of that nature, which are quite a bit beyond a funny cat video. If those people aren't finding work in commercials, they're applying for feature films. If those feature films now have twice the people applying for a position, they now have the power to pay less and ask more. That's just how supply and demand works. And that's how it is working today. Unions have set rates, of course, but that doesn't always apply. It's foolish to think any one industry is immune to change.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that.

I think one point the article was making was not so much about jobs, or who is qualified to be a photographer, or what photography is worth, etc.

But that photographs themselves are becoming less important because they are so ubiquitous. The family photo album was more treasured when there were fewer photos because it was all film which was harder to shoot and more expensive.

Now, we see photos of people's dinner, selfies, text messages with photos, facebook photos, a bazillion million photo websites, pinterest, photobucket, and the digital equivalent of a photo album now consists of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pictures rather than hundreds. Who can wade through it all?

I have facebook friends that literally post up to 10 new photos of their children each day. I don't fault them for it, they are first time parents and you know how that is. But the point is, we have become somewhat desensitized to photography in general when it used to be a little more rare, a little more special.

Personally I see this as different from movies. Yes, there's a bazillion hours of footage on youtube. But a bazillion solid "movies" are not being posted on youtube.
 
Well, yes, cell phones aren't the cause of what's happening elsewhere, and if that's what you meant then you're correct- this article is not wholly related to what's happening in film. But I would also argue that cell phones are a small part of what's happening with photography. Cheap cameras have been getting made since long before smart phones. I'd say the internet sharing mentality has a much bigger impact. I also think that the article heavily misrepresented the problems, since the highest end work is still being done on proper equipment by proper photographers. Even an iPhone needs good lighting. So my conclusion would be that the market has changed in all media production, and that a lot of it crosses over to different mediums. But if we're just talking about the simplified article in particular then no, cell phones are not specifically bringing down feature films quite yet.
 
There's an inflation of value in pictures due to the extreme high amount of images captured. My photos from my childhood forty years ago are precious but photos of my son are less precious. Same thing with video.

I think when you put a smart phone in every ones hands this will change alot. Not only will you diminish the value of photos you'll also make everything consumed when you use a smart phone inflated and value will be lost.

Looking into the future the mind of all mankind will change due to the information inflation.
 
I would very much argue that the thousands and thousands of hours of footage on YouTube are taking a toll on the motion picture industry.
 
Cell phone photos are so easy to take and share, and the technology to share them is so fast and ready that it is now a different category. I take out the GH2 with a couple of lenses when I want to take photographs. I guess the thing lost to the cell phones are higher quality candids but I think the trade off is worth it because being able to share cell phone photos so readily is fun.

I have a flickr account for sharing digital photographs. I think all of this is much much better than that box of photos up in the attic that no one ever sees, except when we're cleaning the attic ;)
 
Osslund said:
Looking into the future the mind of all mankind will change due to the information inflation.
Click to expand...

This is a much more important conclusion than what might be happening in our respective industries in the short term. Yesterday my wife and I were at a small marathon run, and afterwards I noticed a girl getting ready to leave with her friends in a car next to us. There were three of them, pretty young, and none of them were talking. They all just stared at their phones. The one girl took her own picture a dozen times, changed her shirt, took another dozen pictures, all with different facial expressions, finding the right one to share. She didn't share the experience with her friends who were right next to her, or even talk to them. They didn't take group photos, or photos of the location- just herself. I found it a bit disconcerting.
 
RPI-2.jpg

Its like pencils. Their cheap and ubiquitous, but how many can actually draw?


Taken literally 15 seconds ago and now you see it. Context is everything.
 
craigbowman said:
View attachment 79880

Its like pencils. Their cheap and ubiquitous, but how many can actually draw?


Taken literally 15 seconds ago and now you see it. Context is everything.
Click to expand...

someone said something similar to me yesterday after we watched The Hobbit. They attributed the quote to John Waters, but I'm not sure who said it first. It was more like, but how many can write a great novel?

Anyway, this is the point.

Give a novice a Canon 5d at golden hour set on auto, put a pretty girl in front of them and let them shoot for an hour, and chances are one of the photos is going to be pretty darn good. Yes, you can accidentally shoot a great photo. That's not to take away from someone wiht talent to shoot a great photo on purpose, just saying it can happen. Now put hundreds, thousands, millions of photographers taking photos at golden hour (and there are with all the people that have cameras now). That's LOTS of great photos, even if accidentally taken.

But you are not going to accidentally shoot a great 2 hour movie that tells a good story, even if I give you a Red Epic for free.
 
David Jimerson said:
I would very much argue that the thousands and thousands of hours of footage on YouTube are taking a toll on the motion picture industry.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything I've said disagrees with that. I"m just saying there will always be a market for movies, just like books. It will always take a good crew and cast to make a good movie, unlike shooting a video of a cat, a wedding, or writing a book.

The bar for making a good movie will always be high because of the labor involved. Technology cannot change that.

You can take a photograph by yourself. You can write a book by yourself. You are not going to make the next Star Wars movie by yourself, and no matter how many youtube videos and reality shows there are, people will still want to see movies.
 
With the inflation in pictures taken in mind I've actually put it in me to reduce the number of pictures saved. My family argues that I toss away to much and select to narrow. In the long term I must be even more selective to preserve the value.

An interesting thing happens when you cut down on the photos you save. We spend much more time going back watching these pictures than how it was before when I saved almost everything. We also watch each picture longer and remembers the occasion with greater memory.

This is the thing with information around us also. When you do cut down on the intake of info you start to see things more clearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top