The Future of the DSLR, an opinion
Jan 1, 2014 16:59:19 #
A professional photographer I know sent the following out by email just as an interesting opinion. It seems that most people on UHH are in the older generation as far as photography experience goes. Anybody agree or disagree or not care?
By Kirk Tuck He was in the Samsung Booth at PhotoPlus Expo.
I can profile the average camera buyer in the U.S. right now without looking at the numbers. The people driving the market are predominately over 50 years old and at least 90% of them are men. We're the ones at whom the retro design of the OMD series camera are aimed. We're the ones who remember when battleship Nikons and Canons were actually needed to get great shots and we're the ones who believe in the primacy of the still image as a wonderful means of communication and even art. But we're a small part of the consumer economy now and we're walking one path while the generations that are coming behind us are walking another path. And it's one we're willfully trying not to understand because we never want to admit that what we thought of as the "golden age of photography" is coming to an end as surely as the kingdom of Middle Earth fades away in the last book of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
At this Expo we worshipped at the altar of the same basic roster of speakers and presenters who've been speaking and presenting for the last ten years. We've closed the loop and the choice offered to younger photographers is to sit and listen to people old enough to be their grandmothers or grandfathers wax on about how we used to do it in the old days or to not come at all.
When I listen to lectures about how the market has changed what I hear from my generation is how to take the tools we programmed ourselves to love and try to apply them to our ideas of what might be popular with end users today. So we buy D4's and 1DSmkIV's to shoot video on giant Red Rock Micro rigs and we rush to buy Zeiss cinema lenses because we want the control and the idea of ultimate quality in our offerings while the stuff that the current generation is thinking about is more concerned with intimacy, immediacy and verisimilitude rather than "production value." To the new generations the idea of veracity and authenticity always trumps metrics of low noise or high resolution. And that need for perfection is our disconnection from the creative process, not theirs.
Our generation's fight with digital, early on, was to tame the high noise, the weird colors, the slow buffers and the old technology which saddled us with wildly inaccurate and tiny viewfinders and batteries that barely lasted through a sneeze. We pride ourselves on the mastery but the market moved on and now those parameters are taken for granted. Like turning on a television and assuming it will work. We are still staring at the technical landscape which rigidly disconnects us from the emotional interface of the craft. If we don't jump that shark then we're relegated to being like the photographer who makes those precious black and white landscapes which utilize every ounce of his PhotoShop skills but which, in the end, become works that are devoid of any emotional context. In fact, they are just endless revisions of work that Ansel Adams did better, and with more soul, fifty years ago. Technique as schtick. Mastery for mastery's sake with no hook to pull in a new generation. Of course we like technically difficult work. It was hard for us to master all the processes a decade ago. Now it's a canned commodity, a pervasive reality, and what the market of smart and wired in kids are looking for is an emotional connection with their images that goes beyond the mechanical construct.
It's no longer enough to get something in focus, well exposed and color correct. It's no longer good enough to fix all the "flaws" in Photoshop. What the important audience wants now is the narrative, the story, the "why" and not the "how." The love, not the schematic.
So, what does this mean for the camera industry? It means that incremental improvements in quality no longer mean shit to a huge and restless younger market. They don't care if the image is 99% perfect if the content is exhilarating and captivating. No one cared if the Hobbit was available at 48 fps as long as the story was strong in 24 fps. No one cares if a landscape is perfect if there's a reason for the image of a landscape to exist. No one cares if a model is perfect if the model is beguiling.
What it really means for the camera industry is that the tools they offer the new generation must be more intuitively integrated and less about "ultimate." In this world a powerful camera that's small enough and light enough to go with you anywhere (phone or small camera) trumps the huge camera that may generate better billboards but the quality of which is irrelevant for web use and social media. The accessible camera trumps the one that needs a sherpa for transport and a banker for acquisition.
I look at the video industry and I see our generation drawn toward the ultimate production cameras. Cameras like the Red Epic or the Alexa. But I see the next generation making more intimate and compelling work with GH3's and Canon 5D2's and 3's. Or even cameras with less pedigrees. The cheaper cameras mean that today's younger film makers can pull the trigger on projects now instead of waiting for all the right stuff to line up.
If I ran one of the big camera companies I would forget the traditional practitioners and rush headlong toward the youth culture with offerings that allowed them to get to work now with the budgets they have. Ready to go out and shoot landscapes? Will a Nikon D800 really knock everyone's socks off compared to an Olympus OMD when you look at the images side by side on the web? No? Well, that's the litmus test. It's no longer the 16x20 gallery print because we don't support physical galleries any more.
By Kirk Tuck He was in the Samsung Booth at PhotoPlus Expo.
I can profile the average camera buyer in the U.S. right now without looking at the numbers. The people driving the market are predominately over 50 years old and at least 90% of them are men. We're the ones at whom the retro design of the OMD series camera are aimed. We're the ones who remember when battleship Nikons and Canons were actually needed to get great shots and we're the ones who believe in the primacy of the still image as a wonderful means of communication and even art. But we're a small part of the consumer economy now and we're walking one path while the generations that are coming behind us are walking another path. And it's one we're willfully trying not to understand because we never want to admit that what we thought of as the "golden age of photography" is coming to an end as surely as the kingdom of Middle Earth fades away in the last book of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
At this Expo we worshipped at the altar of the same basic roster of speakers and presenters who've been speaking and presenting for the last ten years. We've closed the loop and the choice offered to younger photographers is to sit and listen to people old enough to be their grandmothers or grandfathers wax on about how we used to do it in the old days or to not come at all.
When I listen to lectures about how the market has changed what I hear from my generation is how to take the tools we programmed ourselves to love and try to apply them to our ideas of what might be popular with end users today. So we buy D4's and 1DSmkIV's to shoot video on giant Red Rock Micro rigs and we rush to buy Zeiss cinema lenses because we want the control and the idea of ultimate quality in our offerings while the stuff that the current generation is thinking about is more concerned with intimacy, immediacy and verisimilitude rather than "production value." To the new generations the idea of veracity and authenticity always trumps metrics of low noise or high resolution. And that need for perfection is our disconnection from the creative process, not theirs.
Our generation's fight with digital, early on, was to tame the high noise, the weird colors, the slow buffers and the old technology which saddled us with wildly inaccurate and tiny viewfinders and batteries that barely lasted through a sneeze. We pride ourselves on the mastery but the market moved on and now those parameters are taken for granted. Like turning on a television and assuming it will work. We are still staring at the technical landscape which rigidly disconnects us from the emotional interface of the craft. If we don't jump that shark then we're relegated to being like the photographer who makes those precious black and white landscapes which utilize every ounce of his PhotoShop skills but which, in the end, become works that are devoid of any emotional context. In fact, they are just endless revisions of work that Ansel Adams did better, and with more soul, fifty years ago. Technique as schtick. Mastery for mastery's sake with no hook to pull in a new generation. Of course we like technically difficult work. It was hard for us to master all the processes a decade ago. Now it's a canned commodity, a pervasive reality, and what the market of smart and wired in kids are looking for is an emotional connection with their images that goes beyond the mechanical construct.
It's no longer enough to get something in focus, well exposed and color correct. It's no longer good enough to fix all the "flaws" in Photoshop. What the important audience wants now is the narrative, the story, the "why" and not the "how." The love, not the schematic.
So, what does this mean for the camera industry? It means that incremental improvements in quality no longer mean shit to a huge and restless younger market. They don't care if the image is 99% perfect if the content is exhilarating and captivating. No one cared if the Hobbit was available at 48 fps as long as the story was strong in 24 fps. No one cares if a landscape is perfect if there's a reason for the image of a landscape to exist. No one cares if a model is perfect if the model is beguiling.
What it really means for the camera industry is that the tools they offer the new generation must be more intuitively integrated and less about "ultimate." In this world a powerful camera that's small enough and light enough to go with you anywhere (phone or small camera) trumps the huge camera that may generate better billboards but the quality of which is irrelevant for web use and social media. The accessible camera trumps the one that needs a sherpa for transport and a banker for acquisition.
I look at the video industry and I see our generation drawn toward the ultimate production cameras. Cameras like the Red Epic or the Alexa. But I see the next generation making more intimate and compelling work with GH3's and Canon 5D2's and 3's. Or even cameras with less pedigrees. The cheaper cameras mean that today's younger film makers can pull the trigger on projects now instead of waiting for all the right stuff to line up.
If I ran one of the big camera companies I would forget the traditional practitioners and rush headlong toward the youth culture with offerings that allowed them to get to work now with the budgets they have. Ready to go out and shoot landscapes? Will a Nikon D800 really knock everyone's socks off compared to an Olympus OMD when you look at the images side by side on the web? No? Well, that's the litmus test. It's no longer the 16x20 gallery print because we don't support physical galleries any more.
Jan 1, 2014 17:10:08 #
Jan 1, 2014 17:13:14 #
RPbySC wrote:
A professional photographer I know sent the follow... (show quote)
This reminds me of the art world. An artist's skill set and his or her creativity are two entirely different things. A technically competent skill set is undeniably great to have, and in some artistic disciplines it is essential, but without a spark of meaningful creativity, the skill set isn't worth much. A competent technician does not automatically become a great artist.
Jan 1, 2014 17:16:06 #
Heirloom Tomato wrote:
This reminds me of the art world. An artist's skill set and his or her creativity are two entirely different things. A technically competent skill set is undeniably great to have, and in some artistic disciplines it is essential, but without a spark of meaningful creativity, the skill set isn't worth much. A competent technician does not automatically become a great artist.
True, but what the article is saying is that the younger generation doesn't care about being a competent technician. They are all about the creativity. I agree with you that both are necessary, usually.
Jan 1, 2014 17:18:14 #
RPbySC wrote:
True, but what the article is saying is that the younger generation doesn't care about being a competent technician. They are all about the creativity. I agree with you that both are necessary, usually.
The young artists are like that too. Skill set takes a back seat, if they even allow it in the car.
Jan 1, 2014 17:19:57 #
CDs were FAR superior to LP's... but the MP3 players of today are GARBAGE. As are the current generation of "home theater" type speakers.
Along the same vein is the state of the arts, in particular, photography and music.
There are STILL people who take the time to learn to play their instruments and others who spend a large about of time practicing their vocal skills to avoid the dreaded autotune.
Granted, there WILL be some who prefer convenience of cell phones and point and shoots to take "snapshots"... but as a rule, I'm willing to bet that the next 2 generations of photographers will desire the best quality images and the equipment needed to capture them.
They will buy them and learn how to use them and drive themselves to improve their art... just like WE do.
So the DSLR industry will be just fine. ;)
Along the same vein is the state of the arts, in particular, photography and music.
There are STILL people who take the time to learn to play their instruments and others who spend a large about of time practicing their vocal skills to avoid the dreaded autotune.
Granted, there WILL be some who prefer convenience of cell phones and point and shoots to take "snapshots"... but as a rule, I'm willing to bet that the next 2 generations of photographers will desire the best quality images and the equipment needed to capture them.
They will buy them and learn how to use them and drive themselves to improve their art... just like WE do.
So the DSLR industry will be just fine. ;)
Jan 1, 2014 17:21:04 #
Heirloom Tomato wrote:
The young artists are like that too. Skill set takes a back seat, if they even allow it in the car.
Hopefully it will go full circle and people will come back to approaching their art/photography with some skill, too. But the web really is changing how art is viewed (literally).
Jan 1, 2014 17:23:22 #
RPbySC wrote:
Hopefully it will go full circle and people will come back to approaching their art/photography with some skill, too. But the web really is changing how art is viewed (literally).
The pendulum may swing back and forth a few times before it achieves balance.
Jan 1, 2014 17:24:49 #
Within a couple of months of joining UHH, I posted a topic titled "The soul of a photo" in which I asked, "Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of your enjoyment?"
At least once a week someone asks on UHH whether they should buy better gear because their images don't look good. Then you see their exif and it couldn't be more wrong for the conditions.
Definitely time to re-focus :) on art, creativity, composition, impact. 12 megapixels or 20? Who cares??
At least once a week someone asks on UHH whether they should buy better gear because their images don't look good. Then you see their exif and it couldn't be more wrong for the conditions.
Definitely time to re-focus :) on art, creativity, composition, impact. 12 megapixels or 20? Who cares??
Jan 1, 2014 17:33:10 #
RPbySC wrote:
I personally think that with all that new technology and easy of use ( just push one button) a lot of creativity is lost/or killed and they don't care about that either (not looking rosy in any which way)!True, but what the article is saying is that the younger generation doesn't care about being a competent technician. They are all about the creativity. I agree with you that both are necessary, usually.
Jan 1, 2014 17:35:17 #
Part of what makes a photograph beautiful and appealing to the viewer, i.e. us, is it's appearance. Dark, low resolution pictures with poor white balance and focus are NOT as attractive and the same subject with all those flaws corrected for.
A good photographer can take good pictures with substandard gear... but he will NEVER take GREAT pictures. ;)
A good photographer can take good pictures with substandard gear... but he will NEVER take GREAT pictures. ;)
Jan 1, 2014 17:37:13 #
Ok. This was actually intriguing on a few levels. I don't know what exactly to think about it though.
What is classified as the "older" generation? I think this plays in a factor where i am going to go next.
a little about me. I am 34. I have been working doing photography since I was 7. My first camera was a Kodak Disc camera and i beat that sob into the ground until they stopped making film for it and most of the time at least for the first 9 years at the cost of my parents to get the pictures developed.
When they stopped making film from for the camera i took a break after all, the Disc camera was the only camera i ever used for 11 years. Also at this point i started focusing on other things in my life, with music, an insane love for the movies. But anything i could be around creativity i would. Little did i know movies and music would also influence my future offerings.
3 years later, i felt it was time to get back into the saddle with photography. I started seeing the writing on the wall (on what i felt) that film was going to be on its way out. Being the tech nut that I am, before it would be MANDATORY, i was going to jump on the digital bandwagon. This was in 2002. My first camera a Sony Cybershot 3.2 MP..Btw for those wondering that damn camera costed me nearly 500 bucks. Early Adapter fee i call it. It was a point and shoot. I used that for a few years but because of its size (compared to the Kodak Disc) it was bulky and heavy and the zoom wasn't good. But hey I had a Kodak Disc with far less capabilities. But at least the Kodak I could keep in my pocket.
I didn't carry it too much because of the size. By this time I was 21/22 and i couldn't see myself taking this to the bar. I then got a 14.4 MP Panasonic Lumix. Smaller, better in most aspects. But i was still limited in what I wanted to do.
I have always envisioned myself as a conceptual person. I like creating situations then photographing those situations. I guess you can say i am more interested in the artistic aspect then the "real life" aspect.
I wanted the interchangeable lens, i wanted the flashes. You get the idea. After the breakup with my ex, I ended up buying, on impulse, a Canon Rebel XS.
That's ironic being that I complained about bulk of the Sony and here I am with a bigger camera than that. However, I was using this more than the other. The downside though is because of my experience with cameras (as a whole) i quickly outgrew that camera. I sold it last year and bought a Canon 60d
with the 60d I have been very happy with it. I am "telling" the stories I want to tell. I obviously won't be seeing my photos on instagram or snapchat. But if I wanted to do that I would use my camera phone.
So now that my LOOOOONNGGG story is over with the point that I am making is this.
I think people have different stages. I don't think its telling a story but rather capturing a moment that's important. When you're in a bar with friends you may want to capture that moment to share. Alot of the time you will see these pictures on social media in some form.
When you want to capture an extremely special moment that's when you start investing into cameras just for that, taking photos. Not for making phone calls, where you can change the lens at appropriate times. Whatever gives you the moment you will cherish.
Do the point n shoots have their place? Yeah. Do camera phones have their place. Grudgingly yes . But at the end of the day the DLSR is far from retiring and depending where you are in your life, chances are you will own at least one DLSR.
DLSR is alive and well, its just in a slow point right now because of the "wow i didn't know i can do this" and "hey mom look what i can do with this" factor. But at some point people do expect more from their tools. I surely did as i progressed with what I wanted to do. Will i eventually want to get something else that's capable of more. Yes. Do I need it right now? No. What I have is perfect for the now. When my needs exceed so will the next tool in the repertoire. It's just human nature.
What is classified as the "older" generation? I think this plays in a factor where i am going to go next.
a little about me. I am 34. I have been working doing photography since I was 7. My first camera was a Kodak Disc camera and i beat that sob into the ground until they stopped making film for it and most of the time at least for the first 9 years at the cost of my parents to get the pictures developed.
When they stopped making film from for the camera i took a break after all, the Disc camera was the only camera i ever used for 11 years. Also at this point i started focusing on other things in my life, with music, an insane love for the movies. But anything i could be around creativity i would. Little did i know movies and music would also influence my future offerings.
3 years later, i felt it was time to get back into the saddle with photography. I started seeing the writing on the wall (on what i felt) that film was going to be on its way out. Being the tech nut that I am, before it would be MANDATORY, i was going to jump on the digital bandwagon. This was in 2002. My first camera a Sony Cybershot 3.2 MP..Btw for those wondering that damn camera costed me nearly 500 bucks. Early Adapter fee i call it. It was a point and shoot. I used that for a few years but because of its size (compared to the Kodak Disc) it was bulky and heavy and the zoom wasn't good. But hey I had a Kodak Disc with far less capabilities. But at least the Kodak I could keep in my pocket.
I didn't carry it too much because of the size. By this time I was 21/22 and i couldn't see myself taking this to the bar. I then got a 14.4 MP Panasonic Lumix. Smaller, better in most aspects. But i was still limited in what I wanted to do.
I have always envisioned myself as a conceptual person. I like creating situations then photographing those situations. I guess you can say i am more interested in the artistic aspect then the "real life" aspect.
I wanted the interchangeable lens, i wanted the flashes. You get the idea. After the breakup with my ex, I ended up buying, on impulse, a Canon Rebel XS.
That's ironic being that I complained about bulk of the Sony and here I am with a bigger camera than that. However, I was using this more than the other. The downside though is because of my experience with cameras (as a whole) i quickly outgrew that camera. I sold it last year and bought a Canon 60d
with the 60d I have been very happy with it. I am "telling" the stories I want to tell. I obviously won't be seeing my photos on instagram or snapchat. But if I wanted to do that I would use my camera phone.
So now that my LOOOOONNGGG story is over with the point that I am making is this.
I think people have different stages. I don't think its telling a story but rather capturing a moment that's important. When you're in a bar with friends you may want to capture that moment to share. Alot of the time you will see these pictures on social media in some form.
When you want to capture an extremely special moment that's when you start investing into cameras just for that, taking photos. Not for making phone calls, where you can change the lens at appropriate times. Whatever gives you the moment you will cherish.
Do the point n shoots have their place? Yeah. Do camera phones have their place. Grudgingly yes . But at the end of the day the DLSR is far from retiring and depending where you are in your life, chances are you will own at least one DLSR.
DLSR is alive and well, its just in a slow point right now because of the "wow i didn't know i can do this" and "hey mom look what i can do with this" factor. But at some point people do expect more from their tools. I surely did as i progressed with what I wanted to do. Will i eventually want to get something else that's capable of more. Yes. Do I need it right now? No. What I have is perfect for the now. When my needs exceed so will the next tool in the repertoire. It's just human nature.
Jan 1, 2014 17:37:54 #
Jan 1, 2014 17:38:43 #
And let me remind everyone... those of us who like taking pictures are a minority of the population. Those of us who REALLY like photography enough to learn about it are an even smaller minority. And those of us who REALLY practice and work hard and pay the money for the best gear we can afford are REALLY in the minority.
So I wouldn't be too worried about the next generation OR about the DSLR industry as a whole.
Things will be just fine. ;)
So I wouldn't be too worried about the next generation OR about the DSLR industry as a whole.
Things will be just fine. ;)
Jan 1, 2014 17:39:26 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Definitely time to re-focus :) on art, creativity, composition, impact. 12 megapixels or 20? Who cares??
Definitely time to re-focus :) on art, creativity, composition, impact. 12 megapixels or 20? Who cares??
If I had a New Year's resolution, what you just said would be it. Re-focus on WHY I'm taking the photo and what I want to express. I also enjoy PP with Nik/Topaz. For me, these programs help with the creative process. I also find them fun!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.