Is photography dying because of the cell phone camera?

[Patryk_Rebisz]

This:

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

Unless by "value" you mean something subjective, in which case it's whatever you want it to be. In that case I wouldn't argue against it any more than I'd argue that Pistachio ice cream tastes better than Rocky Road or vice a versa.

There is a crap load of philosophers who come up with complex ways how to quantify the, what you call, subjective. Yes, a 7 year old learns to count before philosophy and thus a typical unschooled (i'm not calling you unschooled for the record) person presumes that numbers are easier to quantify than "subjective" value. What i'm arguing is that an experienced person CAN quantify the subjective. I'm just tired of people using the least path or resistance in reaching their conclusions especially since, as i pointed out, the numbers can be very subjective.

 

[Gillvane]

Then what are you actually arguing? You seem to agree with everything I say, yet you're still disagreeing somehow.




OK, but that's only a single example, and as I said, there will still be a place for it. But in the bigger picture, the $60 game is being eaten alive.

In that bigger picture, things like this:

Get millions of views and require very little to make other than the creativity of it. It's a novelty, but I don't think it's any less entertaining than many, many things which have huge budgets and crews.

That's what mega-million-dollar movies are competing against, making it much harder for them to make money, and that's why there aren't so many of them made anymore. So yeah, it's affecting feature film production, to say NOTHING about how many fewer scripted TV shows there are.

Narrative Movies will always be harder to produce than photographs because they require more labor, more people.
While there will always be a Blair Witch project, backyard productions made for 50 bucks on a BMCC will not replace the majority of narrative movies people watch, and even Blair Witch required a crew and a lot of actors. It's entirely possible people will do yoga or watch goofy videos on youtube or take up Origami instead of watching narrative movies. Yoga is a great hobby. I'm not arguing against that.

 

[Gillvane]

There is a crap load of philosophers who come up with complex ways how to quantify the, what you call, subjective. Yes, a 7 year old learns to count before philosophy and thus a typical unschooled (i'm not calling you unschooled for the record) person presumes that numbers are easier to quantify than "subjective" value. What i'm arguing is that an experienced person CAN quantify the subjective. I'm just tired of people using the least path or resistance in reaching their conclusions especially since, as i pointed out, the numbers can be very subjective.

There is a biggest grossing movie of 2013. It's not subjective and it has nothing to do with "statistics". Box office receipts are not statistics. It doesn't require any analysis or inferences. It's just a list and the highest grossing movie is at the top.

sta·tis·tics
stəˈtistiks/
noun
noun: statistics

• 1.
  the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, esp. for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Gillvane, i'm at the end of my with on how to argue with you because you keep on looking at things way too narrowly and not seeing the big picture.

The director of Iron Man 3 comes to next studio meeting and he's got his job because his last movie was such a hit. If he attends a party and has a strong opinion on something - say politics, philosophy, whatever - then someone ask what he does for a living and the answer is "I directed Iron Man 3" - 9/10 the people will walk away cause his opinion in any general context doesn't matter and his expertise is close to zero (unless they are arguing on what makes a blockbuster in which case he's an expert). You see. Exact number - in one set of circumstances means that he's a king, in another - specifically because everyone know that Iron Man is a brain dead entertainment - he's a nobody.

Likewise regarding of the poorly produced videos. Yes, there is no $ in them but there is cred. I shot a set of super low budget videos that by now where seen by over 50m people. The director on those videos made a few hundred dollars and even though he never made any extra $ on the fact that the videos were such a success - today he can enter into any meeting for a commercial and get the job on the spot specifically because everyone heard his success story.

 

[David Jimerson]

Narrative Movies will always be harder to produce than photographs because they require more labor, more people.
While there will always be a Blair Witch project, backyard productions made for 50 bucks on a BMCC will not replace the majority of narrative movies people watch, and even Blair Witch required a crew and a lot of actors. It's entirely possible people will do yoga or watch goofy videos on youtube or take up Origami instead of watching narrative movies. Yoga is a great hobby. I'm not arguing against that.

It is already replacing it for many people. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

 

[Cassius]

Maybe the problem is in the definition of that downward pressure. I can say from my personal experience working in film that I've seen jobs dry up, rates drop and quality requirements diminish in exchange for a streamlined product. I'm sure I'm not alone. Some of my best business comes from capitalizing on the need for low cost alternatives to some expensive shots. If everyone is losing income, does that not mean that the industry is going in a downward direction? Just because polished films are being made, does that mean its a healthy industry? Are brick and mortar used book stores a great business model because a few have managed to remain open? Things are changing. Yes, some big movies are being made, but the industry as a whole is losing on its margins. In the present tense. Saying otherwise is a serious case of denial, or a side effect of not being involved enough in the industry to see what's happening.

And, to use the video game analogy, I haven't purchased a game like Call of Duty in a long while. I get a lot of entertainment out of not quite so polished free to play or low cost games that don't have the photo realistic graphics, but definitely have the concept of fun down. Since I'm playing games like Planetside I don't need Call of Duty- meaning that they made at least $60 less than they might otherwise.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Maybe the problem is in the definition of that downward pressure. I can say from my personal experience working in film that I've seen jobs dry up, rates drop and quality requirements diminish in exchange for a streamlined product. I'm sure I'm not alone. Some of my best business comes from capitalizing on the need for low cost alternatives to some expensive shots. If everyone is losing income, does that not mean that the industry is going in a downward direction? Just because polished films are being made, does that mean its a healthy industry? Are brick and mortar used book stores a great business model because a few have managed to remain open? Things are changing. Yes, some big movies are being made, but the industry as a whole is losing on its margins. In the present tense. Saying otherwise is a serious case of denial, or a side effect of not being involved enough in the industry to see what's happening.

And, to use the video game analogy, I haven't purchased a game like Call of Duty in a long while. I get a lot of entertainment out of not quite so polished free to play or low cost games that don't have the photo realistic graphics, but definitely have the concept of fun down. Since I'm playing games like Planetside I don't need Call of Duty- meaning that they made at least $60 less than they might otherwise.

I think it's the problem of perception. "Titanic," as i said above, was seen by only 5% of world's population. And the producers of "Titanic" were more than thrilled with those results. "Breaking Bad" is watched by 3% of US population and the producers are happy too. In essence "Titanic," "Breaking Bad" or Godard's next film are all niche films. One is seen as pop culture - seemingly seen by "all" while the other is seen as art - seemingly seen by noone. This mistaken outlook is dangerous because the perception - even if wrong - rubs off on the makers. All the sudden the artist gives up making cinema while another thinks himself as "the king of the world." The younger, less experienced makers start presuming that to be relevant one needs to be part of the pop culture without realizing that both pop and art are niche cultures.

 

[David Jimerson]

Maybe the problem is in the definition of that downward pressure. I can say from my personal experience working in film that I've seen jobs dry up, rates drop and quality requirements diminish in exchange for a streamlined product. I'm sure I'm not alone. Some of my best business comes from capitalizing on the need for low cost alternatives to some expensive shots. If everyone is losing income, does that not mean that the industry is going in a downward direction? Just because polished films are being made, does that mean its a healthy industry? Are brick and mortar used book stores a great business model because a few have managed to remain open? Things are changing. Yes, some big movies are being made, but the industry as a whole is losing on its margins. In the present tense. Saying otherwise is a serious case of denial, or a side effect of not being involved enough in the industry to see what's happening.

And, to use the video game analogy, I haven't purchased a game like Call of Duty in a long while. I get a lot of entertainment out of not quite so polished free to play or low cost games that don't have the photo realistic graphics, but definitely have the concept of fun down. Since I'm playing games like Planetside I don't need Call of Duty- meaning that they made at least $60 less than they might otherwise.

^^^^^^^^^

 

[GHKAM]

My photos from my childhood forty years ago are precious but photos of my son are less precious. Same thing with video.

There's irony in that, although picture taking from forty years ago was less ubiquitous like today's technology permits, your prints that were derived from film are still around yet with all this frequent picture taking no one is talking about an archive strategy for the future.

The average person seems to be just storing digital picture files on hard drives or uploading online. How many of today's pictures and videos will survive on drives or disks into the future? Will sites like Facebook and Flickr even be around by, for example, the year 2030?

 

[adkimery]

I think there is a lot of talk of absolutes when the reality is there will just be more stratification. I mean, the argument can be made that movies have been 'losing ground' ever since TV started taking off in the 50's. In the following decades Cable TV, VCRs/DVRs, video games, the Internet, etc., have all eaten into the allotment of free time the average Joe has. So do movie studios get the same sized piece of the 'free time pie' today that they got in 1925? No, they get a fraction of that today yet movies still get made an people go to see them. It's not a matter of X replacing Y, but of X and Y finding an equilibrium where only Y used to exist before.

Honestly it reminds me a lot of the food industry. Just because I can go to a grocery store and buy food (either ingredients or pre-packaged meals) doesn't mean that restaurants can't exist. And in the realm of restaurants there is everything from McDonald's to Chili's to Ruth's Chris Steak House. Does McDonald's worry that its ingredients aren't as good as Ruth's Chris? Does Ruth's Chris worry that it doesn't have a dollar menu like McDonald's?


-Andrew

 

[mentatDUKE]

^^^Won

 

[hawaj]

Is photography dying because of the cell phone camera?

Absolutely not. Only more creative people will be discoverd. Its just democratization of instruments. Now there are tons of amazing photos and videos only some peoply dont see it. Stop moaning and open your eyes.

Did painting died because of camera? Did theaters died because film, film beause of TV, TV because of videocameras, VCRs, internet, ... etc. etc.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Only more creative people will be discoverd. Its just democratization of instruments. Now there are tons of amazing photos and videos only some peoply dont see it. Stop moaning and open your eyes.

What? When was the last time you saw something amazing? The prevalence of anything ALWAYS changes the status quo and i'm sorry to say that it doesn't produce MORE talented people because talent by itself means very little. What also counts is the experience and without any kind incentive to really peruse the dream most will not spend that much time going any-deeper beyond shallow understandings of the issues. That in turn doesn't produce MORE talent but rather MORE "easy solutions."

 

[Grug]

Is it dying? Absolutely not, there are more photos being taken nowadays and more photos being shared nowadays specifically because of mobile phone cameras. Are the aesthetics and technicalities of these cameras becoming simplified? Sure. But I hardly think you could say photography is dying, it's booming - it's just that it's evolving.