larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This post is long. If long posts bother you, please either scan or skip, but don't fuss about it.

I recently introduced the idea on another thread that there were four categories of photographers. I also suggested that we probably cannot exist and thrive without each other, and mentioned in that thread that I'd explain more outside that thread. So here it is.

For context, it is no secret that the number of serious photographic choices has diminished drastically over the past few years. This has occurred while significant technological innovations have drastically improved and expanded the capability of photographic equipment and therefore of photographers. Member mtshooter posted a chart on another thread this week showing the serious drop in photographic equipment sales and that neither the DSLR nor the mirrorless segment had grown over the last several years. In today's business world, there is no business model that will long support manufacturing into a market like this...all depend on growth to survive.

I believe that the situation need not be fatal, however. And communities like the members of this forum are in a position to change the trends, if we will accept the responsibility. Our charge is to do whatever we can to encourage those who are already part of the discipline to stay and to bring new participants into it. This post does not provide all of the solution to that, but I think it provides some understanding and basis for how to proceed. And I hope it provides a basis for us to understand each other a little better and to get along better. And...these categories are generalized...the boundaries are a little bit squishy, and there are a few people who might fit in more than one category.

Group 1: Professional Photographers

This small group earns a living by doing photography of subjects chosen by others. They can be full-time or part time, and their subjects are varied. Cameras, lenses, and other equipment are tools to get a job done, and must be functional and reliable. This group generally does not drive the technology, and may be slightly slow to adopt new things, because they generally cannot tolerate equipment that has obvious operational quirks, design shortcomings or mistakes, or a high rate of random failure. They will generally wait at least a little while until new models are proven.

Group 2: Art Photographers

This small group earns a living (or seeks to) by doing photography of subjects chosen by themselves. They also can be full-time or part time. Specializations are numerous, from literal landscapes to very abstract images. Economy and reliability are important to this group, although some of them may be very interested in a new camera body or lens that will provide one more avenue of expression or differentiation, so they may be a little bit quicker to adopt new items. Budget constraints are still important to this group.

Group 3: Photographic Enthusiasts

This group, larger than the first two, includes a number of different types of photographers. The most important is the "gear nuts." These folks are the people know about new models at least 6 months the manufacturer announces them (if not a year and 6 months) and who either get on the preorder list for new bodies or lenses or make certain that they are in their local camera store on the first day of availability or that they submit their order to B&H or Adorama or Cameta as soon as the online order system will accept it. They are extremely important both to the manufacturers and to the retailers, because they are the ones who provide early cash flow to pay for the development, engineering, and manufacturing startup. This is also the group that is always trying new and different things to do and new ways to create images. They investigate and learn the capabilities and features of each new camera body or lens. They measure download speeds and push ISO limits. They are the drivers of innovation and new features.

Group 4: Snapshooters

This group is the largest of all. It is the group that can insure the survival of the entire discipline of photography. It is the only group that is large enough to buy enough cameras and lenses to cover the overhead cost of operating a photographic manufacturing, distribution, or retail business. While the other groups might survive without these folks, most of us could not afford the resulting higher prices of the more specialized equipment. This is the group that has defected to smartphone photography, and it is the group that we need to work to get back. And no...we don't need all of them. We never had everyone who now has a smartphone. We just need as many as we can get. Some are already coming back as they discover they need more flexible equipment to do what they want to do. (Note that I did not say better equipment...some of the phone cameras are stunningly good in the right hands and with a little learning and practice.) We need to be ready for them when they express interest. And we do not need to be disdaining their current practice of using their phones. We just need to be ready to encourage and then help them make the transition. Remember...they are going to be moving to a medium that requires them to do some things. They are accustomed to simply aiming and clicking.

Later we can discuss some specific ways to preserve adn build Group 4.

But I am going to leave us all (including me) with this reminder: At all times, remember the questions you had when you were new and everything was overwhelming.

pbcbob Loc: Delray Beach, FL

Great closing comment. Too many people forget to ask questions after reaching a certain comfort level.

BamaTexan Loc: Deep in the heart of Texas

If I go through a day of shooting without making a mistake or without learning something new then I might as well have stayed in bed. BTW I do this for the sheer satisfaction and joy of it.

SS319

I think I want to respectfully disagree. First, I only see two types of people that use a camera: The first is the person that sees an image in his mind and chases that image until he has it on film - or rather disk. This person is an artist, and the photographs he produces are art. These people exist across the technological spectrum from a child's 2MP camera to a Hasslebaad to a 24 inch Schmidt–Cassegrain telescope or larger. Some, but not all of these people use photography as a source of income. The second type is the one that points their camera in what sometimes seems like a random direction trying to capture a picture of someplace where they were. Most of them have no clue about Depth of field or Second curtain sync, but most of all, their photography has no subject and thus tells no story. Again, these people use 2MP cameras, and they use large telescopes. They will be out in force next week and you will know them because all of their pictures will impose their own image between the camera and the eclipse.

Photography will not wither and it will not die because the people in the first group need to take that picture, and they will not stop until they have it on film. The second group will not allow photography to die either because they have a need to advertise their location and their attire to all their friends on a frequency approaching 4 times and hour.

You mention that "the number of serious photographic choices has diminished drastically ...while significant technological innovations have drastically improved and expanded the capability ...of photographers" The size and shape of cameras has changed, but we have not lost the capability of the 8X10 or the TLR camera, we have made these cameras useless because we can do everything they could do with a fraction of the bulky equipment and at a fraction of the price. We no longer have to reroll film back into a cartridge and change film just to change the ISO, we don't have to take extensive notes with each shot so we know how long to leave the film in the developer to get the image we expected. We can still burn and dodge an image, but we do not have to do it for each print from a negative, we do it once and print 1-1000 copies of any size we want to print.

But, I do not disagree with your final statement, I would actually take it further. I have, when photographing a popular scene, actually stepped up to a person with a camera or even with a phone, and asked them to step over here, use this object to frame that image, do this, do that, so they can begin to see that photography is more than just pointing the camera somewhere in space and pushing the button. I try and explain thirds and foreground background when I see people shooting. How many of these people improved their photography - maybe none or even less, I don't know, but if one person looks at the photo I helped them with and chooses to learn something about the subject, it is all worth it.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

I'm sorry, but your comments are an over simplification of the subject.

salmander

[quote=larryepage]
Group 4: Snapshooters
This group is the largest of all.

One thing I've never seen or heard discussed is the number of cell phone photographers who initially had no interest in photography, but through their experience with the no-thought-needed cell phone photos they took, became interested in photography, and then decided to learn more about it, buy equipment, etc. I imagine that there is no way we could ever hear of any statistics about this. Before cell phones, and before the cheap disposable cameras, anyone interested in taking photos had to buy a camera of some kind, whether a cheap one or not, which inhibited many people from pursuing the craft. Since just about everyone has a cell phone capable of taking pictures, taking pictures is now ubiquitous. Some of these people are graduating into photography on a more sophisticated level. We never hear about this. No one ever talks about it (that I know about). Those are the people to encourage.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Your first group is really a sub group. Professional Photographers includes both of your first two groups. Your first group might be called "Contract Photographers" or "Working Photographers." Photo journalists might fit in either category the way you have described them. PJs working for an outlet on assignment might go in the first while free lancers who choose their own projects might go in the other. However, your aim of separating them into groups based on their relationship to technology is not served by forcing them into groups based on how they get paid. Better grouping might be based on their relationship to tech.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

[quote=SS319]I think I want to respectfully disagree.

Photography will not wither and it will not die because the people in the first group need to take that picture, and they will not stop until they have it on film. The second group will not allow photography to die either because they have a need to advertise their location and their attire to all their friends on a frequency approaching 4 times and hour.

You mention that "the number of serious photographic choices has diminished drastically ...

My statement was that without the folks in Group 3 and (especially) in Group 4, even if the manufacturers continue producing equipment, none of us will be able to afford it. The high volume products cover most of the overhead costs of the producing organization. Without that volume, those costs have to be spread over far fewer units produced, driving the costs per unit up and raising prices...significantly.

And serious photographic choices have diminished dramatically. Where is Minolta? For that matter, where is Konica? Where is Olympus in the "serious" camera business? If you still prefer silver-based photography, good luck finding a new replacement when your current equipment wears out. And even with some significant product reintroductions, film choices are limited. The last source for Polaroid peel-apart film is gone, despite a very active and serious group of enthusiasts still using it.

A case could be made that some of this change is legitimate progress and comes from technological advance. Ask those who have been using the discontinued technologies if they feel that is valid. My answer to that doesn't matter. Their matters very much.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Thanks for categories but frankly I find people fall into all of these at one time or another. Once you try to pigeon hole, reality gets in the way.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I will compare what happens in most industries to the camera manufacturers. I the US in the 1970's there were 20 or so cardiac implant manufactures in the US. Now there fewer than 5, but the others didn't disappear, they were swollowed up by the other outfits. They became "divisions" of the larger companies. This kind of thing happens accross all of industry. And it already happened, to one degree or another in the camera business. It probably will continue. I can forsee Richo-Pentax becomming canon (or nikon) "divisions" . So while Cell Phones continue to deminish (real) camera sales, the Industry must adapt. With regard to the types of photogrophers--there are any number of ways to label them, Pro or enthusiast. Good, bad or indifferent. Artist or amature. and so on and on. That's my shot at it, for whatever it's worth--Probably not much.

nupshaw Loc: Strasburg, VA

I think the bottom line is, encourage everyone to take that next step up, if they can be shown how much better their shots will be with the better equipment. Perhaps the perception that the market is shrinking comes from the fact that social media and smart phones put the casual shooters in our face?

If I could handle carrying all the equipment, I would have invested more in better lenses, etc. I find that my artistic senses drive me to do things to improve my shots, so I think that will always be true for those with artistic tendencies. I doubt that smart phones and point and shoots will ever satisfy that market.

And yes, please don't be condescending or sarcastic when someone asks a question. That only serves to stifle those who are struggling to understand.

SS319

Larry, you have chosen a point in history - occurring within your lifetime - and are comparing life to that current historical point. Before Minolta, before Contax, before the 35mm camera, people were capturing images on silver. before you could buy speed-pacs for your 4X5 SG, there was plenty of silver images. A true Photography history buff would find some good maple or walnut and build their 8X10 camera, perhaps they would grind their own lens, although it is not necessary, and surely if you are still running your own darkroom, you have the chemical knowledge to create your own emulsions of silver and lay those emulsions on glass or nitrate film so you can use it in that camera you have built.

Some day, our grandkids will complain about the good old days of the Canon 5D and the Nikon D500 and how history is escaping them. But, in those days, as it is today, and as it was in the golden days of Life and Colliers and NatGeo, there will be great Photography being done every day.

Photography is not about technology! Give a chimpanzee a modern camera, he will capture great Photographs - but he will never function in the field of photography. His photos will never be worth a thousand words.

Salamander's statement above

puts the lie to your logic; people that find they cannot do everything with a I-phone will eventually buy ICL units. But my point is that photographers can use phones to create photography, and when they do, phone makers will have to start putting viewfinder information on the phone so these photographers can exercise the control over their art necessary for them to express the images of their mind. Cell phones will need tripod connections and the capability to use off phone flash or their users will be forced to move up to capable devices.

Remember, though, a camera, be it a wood 8X10 or a plastic Canon T6i, or a Galaxy S8 phone is not photography, each of them are only tools in repertoire of the photographer. In the same way that industry is creating better and better tools to create better and better cars and washing machines, photographers are using modern devices to create photographic images that far surpass the images produced by Brady, Aadams, Leibovitz, or others of eras gone by.

Larry, Don't worry; future history is in good hands. Ansel Adams is no longer taking photographs, but people that understand Ansel Adams Photography are taking images that would cause Ansel to exclaim "WOW! I never created an image equal to that one."

Tikva Loc: Waukesha, WI

Very will written. I'm partially in the third group and partially in the fourth. However, I almost never use the camera on my phone, never did. I'm waiting for the new iPhone 8 to see what kind of camera it has, but I don't know why. I have a Nikon D500, but I don't have it with me all of the time. I want to get into the habit of taking pictures with the iPhone when I don't have my camera. I know the photos aren't as great. But they will do for small photos.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The problem with your third group is that your wording focuses so much on equipment. In fact, the major difference between "professionals" and "enthusiasts" is in motivation. In addition, I believe your second group is properly a subdivision of the third group.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

There are many in Group 4 (snap shooters) who don't really have any ambition or desire to move up to Group 3; they are perfectly happy just taking snap shots.