Digital Photographers, Welcome Back to 1999
I’m convinced that 2009 is to digital stills photography what 1999 was to film photography. Call me Chicken Little. But I say that there’s another cataclysm heading our way. Although we can’t see the storm right now, in a handful of years, another wave of clouds will roll across the horizon. Careers for many will end – just like they did for film shooters who would not jump across the chasm into a digital world. Hint: you will know that the new storm is upon you when your client says “sure you’re a talented stills photographer, but who wants pictures that don’t move anymore?”
Darwin was right. The world won’t wait for you to figure out that the environment has already changed. A decade ago, film was king and digital cameras were expensive and buggy. The workflow to manage digital photos was equally expensive and filled with pitfalls. The naysayers happily pointed to the efficiency of their film cameras as they scoffed at digital’s early adopters. Today “photoshop” is a verb, Kodachrome is dead, and for much less than a typical mortgage payment you can buy all the digital camera gear needed to shoot a cover for Time magazine.
History will repeat itself. It’s been less than a year since the introduction of Canon’s 5D Mark II as first HDSLR with commercial potential. It’s only been a couple of months since the 5DM2 firmware was upgraded to allow the cinematographer to set the ISO, shutter speed and aperture. So, yes this technology is in its infancy. Learning to manage the output from a camera that spits out 300+ mb per minute in a quirky codec is tough. Want to capture pro-quality audio and sync it? Want to edit everything into a meaningful sequence? Want to transcode it for YouTube, the iPhone or Blue Ray? All are possible – if you’re willing to invest the time to learn and the money to get the gear. I guarantee you that the difficulty and expense will be much less in five years. But why wait? The early adopters are once again getting the head start on the industry.
Why the value of still images is collapsing
It’s that old supply-and-demand thing. The supply of digital images is way, way up. At the same time, advertising in magazines and newspapers is sinking.
If you want to continue earning a living at something you already do, it’s helpful if your trade is difficult to do and expensive to get started. Photography during the film-era was this way. Every time I pushed the shutter-button a couple of bucks flew out the window. Now the cost of getting into the pro photography game is virtually nothing (aside from the cost of the camera, the computer, the software, the training… still a relatively low investment for what you’re able to accomplish). I’m grateful that HDSLR cinematography is expensive and problematic right now.
The Trib Is Dead. Long Live The Trib. For several generations, ads in magazines and newspapers were the leading consumer of commercial stills. Sorry Charlie, those days are gone. Today advertisers are increasingly moving their efforts over to web-based campaigns. It’s not personal. It’s demographics. OK. So that means that it is personal. The web, with it’s ability to provide instantaneous feedback to advertisers enables those spending the ad bucks to target their message exactly where it needs to be within minutes. For an ad placed in the wrong magazine, the response time is measured in weeks or months. Print advertising is plummeting (stats here). It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the medium. Check out MagazineDeathPool if you’re not already a regular reader. Now is not be the time to launch a career as a magazine shooter.
The Internet is not going away. Just the opposite is true. One need look no farther than the iPhone phenomenon to understand that the web is creeping into all corners of our lives. As bandwidth gets cheaper and more widespread, who is going to want to watch a static image when the entire world streams past? It’s not lost on me that the newest parents of today were raised during the early years of MTV. Imagine what the flow of images will be like when their kids come of age.
Watch out! The future is coming!
The world of Minority Report’s talking billboards is not far away.
Harry Potter’s moving newspapers are being invented.
Flexible, ultra-thin color screens are not far behind.
Oh wait? Did I make those last points with statements that were in motion?
A final thought – the silver screen is shrinking
I’ve often imagined that there was one curious brontosaurus millions of years ago who wondered why that one twinkle in the night sky grew larger each night. I imagine him standing out there year after year watching it grow from a speck to a noticeable glow to a fiery torment. Good news (for me) is that I’ve experienced the world change around me once before… I’m not waiting around this time. I’m doing all I can to morph commercially into a digital cinematographer – with the full expectation that my “silver screen” will be exactly the size of the latest iPhone.
Syl, this is a brilliant, must-read post. I don’t like the idea of video (as compared to still photography, which I think will always be my medium of choice). There; I said it. But the market isn’t going to care what I like. It never does. My choice isn’t really going to matter. Hurts to think that, but it’s true. I do think that a market for still photography will remain (wishful thinking?), but the market for video is definitely going to grow and grow quickly.
Fantastic read- just like any other industry out there, we all need to evolve in order to survive. Thanks !
I wonder if the same was said about paintings when photography was born – “Why spend so much time infront of a canvas when a camera captures what is real??”
I don’t doubt how photographs are captured will continue to change dramatically, but I believe there will always be a high demand for Professional still images. Yes, the cost of getting into the pro photography game is lower, but I refer you again to my painting analogy, supplies and training are extremely low for it, but how many of us would rather purchase someone else’s work than do it ourselves?
Simply put, I believe your comparison of still and moving images are apples and oranges, just like a photograph and a painting. Both are art, both take skills anyone can learn, but people perceive and view them as two completely different mediums, and pay accordingly. No one will ever view a moving image on their wall, the way they would a still image.
I tend to agree with your view of where photography is moving.
As example when I reached the 1,000 subscriber mark I decided to give away 2 signed and professionally printed images on archival paper with free shipping. So far there has only been a few takers and none of these so far are regular readers. There were no stings attached or other motive except to thank them for coming by to read the articles.
In my next article I am going to ask then why this is the case since I know the really enjoy the images and yet no takers.
I believe that in the future for many in there homes or offices prints will not be the preferred medium of display but large monitors with better colour gamut.
They will enjoy this more as they can have images change on a regular basis, by the minute or day.
This will lead as you discussed the need to display not stills but videos that convey more emotions.
Who would not want to have at least in the early parts of the video, a segment of the movie ‘Home’ playing on their wall? It is just wonderous.
Niels Henriksen
Like Irwin says, apples and oranges.
Perhaps what is happening with video now is the democratization of high-quality film-making equipment. In other words what happened to photography over the last 10 years is now happening to video. We’ll see more film-makers producing more content. As with photography, much of that content will be crap.
The difference though, is while the volume of still images increased over the last 10 years, the channels for showing them (commercially) have decreased. With film, web delivery is just increasing the channels to show video.
I also think the final product – still or video – is apples and oranges. But the process of capturing is merging. The now famous Esquire cover captured with a Red One camera is an example of this. Is it a video camera that allows you to pull stills or a still camera that shoots so fast its video? Who cares. In some ways it is the ultimate “spray and pray” – turn on the camera and start moving the subject or visa-versa. But anyone who has shot video knows that it is much harder than that. Video guys know about moving light and moving the camera with the subject. Still guys know about moving the subject around the light and the subject around the camera/camera around the subject. The guys who learn to do all of that at once will win.
From now on, everything will be movable but the end product will be both still and video. There might be some exceptions at each end of the lighting scale but I am struggling to think of them. I am surprised sports “image capture” has not gone to this already. Why have a sideline photographer with “just” a still or video camera?
Economics says that increases in productivity produce winners. As long as time stays constant, productivity can only be increased by doing more things in the same amount of time. So the guy who can capture and marked bot still and video of the winning touchdown with both high quality instead of one or the other being grainy/blurry will get the increased productivity.
I have been shooting pictures of an outdoor theater. The production was also shot for a DVD. Once you have seen and heard the entire two hours you are unlikely to watch it again until you subject another round of guests/family to your 30 seconds of fame. But the stills can be shown and looked at over and over. The slide show of the stills is even better and takes 5 minutes instead of 2 hours. I dont think that is going to change and if anything, well shot stills will gain value. JMHO.
Nice rant!
Important issues.
Careful basing your future on future casting.
Basing it on passion means you’ll find a way to make it work – and be willing to be persistent and make the sacrifices even when it doesn’t.
I agree technology is advancing. Can you compare the advance from film to digital, to digital still to digital video? I don’t think so. It’s different. Will still photography fade? Nobody knows at this point. Will I buy a newspaper or magazine with video in it? Probably not, I have a computer. The new paper thin video screens will make our computers, tv’s and and cell phones lighter and smaller, but then again maybe there is some new innovation around the corner. Video is not new. Still is not new. Video has been around for some time. When digital cameras came along it was new technology. Something to replace film. The reason I don’t think video will replace stills is because they are different. Like Syl said magazines and newspapers have been doing poorly because of the internet not video. Again I agree with Syl, newspapers, magazine photographers are suffering because the supply of good images available. Is video going to be any different? Why would you pay several hundred bucks for a picture when you can go on a stock website and get an equally good photo for tens of dollars? It’s just not good business. I know this pisses photographers off but it’s the truth. If I had a choice of 2 comparable products not knowing the artist, one for $700 and one for $30 I will choose the $30 regardless of the product or service, as long as they are equal. Any business person would do the same. Things are changing. Would I put all my eggs in video at this point? Nope. Do I think Photography is changed forever? Yes. It has become easy to produce wonderful photos with little skill. Video will be shortly behind. Technology will get smarter, still and video WILL be done by everyone with great ease. Why invest in something that everyone with a couple thousand dollars can do? Is video going to be any different than photography is today? The market is already flooded with video. Nokia is making an HD video cell phone, which I am sure other company’s are to. I will probably be able to pick one up for $199 with a 2 year contract. That means probably within 1 or 2 years 600 million people world wide will be making hd video. I think Syl is right about the future is changing, but to make a living off of photography or video is going to be short lived. The art of Photography won’t die, the profession of photographer or videographer for that matter might. The elite will survive, but mostly because they will be teaching and doing workshops on how to use this stuff. I will continue to do photography because it’s what I love. My first camera was actually a canon camcorder so i am familiar with video but in my opinion video is right behind photography in terms of everyone will be able to do it. Where the market will go is unknown, but like the boy scouts say always be prepared.
Very well written, well thoughout, post, Syl. Very thought-provoking too. While I’m not a commercial photographer, I do manage my company website and am starting to look for the photographer that can figure out a way to develop a video or a photo slideshow – also moving pictures in a way – that is compelling to the user of my website, but at a cost-friendly basis compared to the the old-school video production units. It’s an exciting time, for sure…
[...] Arena over at PixSylated posted a blog on where the photography industry is headed. I started to comment, but then realized my comment was getting long enough to be a post so here [...]
Change or Die? Evolve or stagnate and whither. You betcha.
Excellent Post
Mike
Why do people take black&white photos when there’s color, and there’s 3d and there’s video? Because they are all different products. And I must admit to prefer to see a beautiful woman dressing her underwear rather than completely naked. Sometimes less is more, and when you have limits (technological, self-imposed, or whatever) you can concentrate on the details and maybe create a masterpiece.
I second what Irvin said before, and I think your post is a little bit provoking
Look through a stack of photography mags from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. They just as often covered motion photography and movie camera gear as they did still photography. This revolution has happened once already!
Another great post Syl! Still, I hope folks will enjoy a still here and there.
I like taking them.
I’ve played with video for years now. Nothing spectacular, just a podcast now and again. I’ve got a long way to go in order to “adapt” if video is “it.” Guess I’ll slowly evolve, continue enjoying stills, and toy with the 5DII’s video here and there.
Syl,
Very interesting and thought provoking issues. Something a “newbie” or “aspiring” photographer should think about.
Regards,
Vincent
always a paradigm shift, always new toys to play with…
one correction, the first DSLR with HD Video was the Nikon D90 (released sept 08)
the 5dm2 was released 2 months later
[...] Source and Read More: pixsylated.com [...]
Grant – No correction needed. You’ll note that I described Canon’s 5DM2 as the” first HDSLR with commercial potential”. Since the D90 shoots 1280 x 720, rather than 1920 x 1080, it’s not been used much (at all?) for commercial work. The ability to shoot 1080P has become the de facto standard.
Hey Syl
Video schmedio. I’m still working on the concept of grunts, clicks and opposable thumbs…
Great post,
Ziv
[...] Let’s take another quick detour down to hybrid camera row shall we? Syl Arena had a post a day or two ago about the future. He posits that 2009 and digital photography is much like 1999 and film photography. Meaning? That [...]
The difference between 720p and 1080p hd has very little resolution difference on anything less than a 50″ viewing surface. If you are shooting commercials for ipods and such, 720p would work just fine. I will say I am not familiar with the d90 so I do not know it’s limitations. Most all things you see on tv broadcasts are not in fact true 1080p hd. Most broadcasts are done in 1080i or 720p because the bandwidth of the 1080p. The main way to get true 1080p out of a tv is blue-ray, or hooking your computer to your tv. So I would say 720p could in fact be used for commercial work unless I am misunderstanding what “commercial work” is.
[...] course, if you believe Syl Arena, the sky is falling on photographers. He says that stills are on the way out, and sees video as a necessary skill in order to make a [...]
Great post.
But where do you go from here?
What software to learn, now? Are hybrid cameras “the thing” or is it worth an investment in a more typical type video camera?
How about a primer on how you are delving into things?
SAS / Dallas
Syl, you forgot the “video wall” in the “Back To The Future II” film. Moving images, like a river, and still images, like a still pond will always have their places; ever changing – yes, but both are necessary.
That said, now Canon needs to develop a quality “video-strobe” for the 5D MKII, 7D and beyond!
“may you live in interesting times” indeed!
~ trace
Sal – You ask a fair questions. Px will be the gateway to follow what I’m doing (with random snippets on Twitter).
Where do I go from here? Went to the Collision Conference in LA two weeks ago (amazing!). Doing to the DV Expo next week. Then to Photoshop World the week after. Reading Video Made On A Mac – which is great.
Software > Final Cut Pro is the most popular on the Mac. Premier and Vegas seem equally split on the PC side. I have huge faith in Adobe. Would not be surprised to see Premier gain ground on the Mac side over time. Beyond the editing program: AfterEffects or Motion, Soundbooth, Color… Just taking my first steps down this path myself. Online training at Lynda.com and Kelby Training are a huge resource.
Cameras > The world is flooded with video (most of it poor). My interest is in HSDLR cinematography. Completely different. It all has to do with sensor size. The cinematic look — shallow depth of field and focus that moves — cannot be created with typical video cams due to their small sensor. Many use adapters (most are $2000+) to create these effects. Sensor size in HDSLR allows this from the get go. But, it’s hard going. There are a lot of workarounds and challenges.
Hey Syl is it possible to show us a little tid bit of what you have been working on? I agree video will become more popular just not as convinced as you are it will be the only way. I am not going to be so stubborn to not learn how to do it because I will, and I am sure I will like it, and invest in it. If you like taking pictures what’s not to like about making a creative movie? I just don’t think it will take over stills that’s all. I would be interested to see some of the work you speak of.
Where it involves commercial media, I think you’ll find an interesting turn-around where video will actually be the second choice, or alternate (longer) view of an advertisement or news story.
Marketers of products and news will realize that most people will scan through the onslaught of media, opting to take most of it in quickly without the visuals setting the timeline. Viewing video will be an option, not a given. Static images will be the standard first and most important visual to drawing the viewer, hopefully, in for more.
Then there’s the issue of budgets. Since still photography will cost less to produce than production video, and the still image will be of higher initial value, will video always be budgeted for?
By the way, I love video production, too. But I realize it is not the same media experience as still imagery. They are two different things entirely.
[...] the article on Pixsylated blog Sly Arena in an article ‘Digital Photographers, Welcome Back to 1999 ’, it discusses the demise of still photography with the greater emergence of [...]
I agree with Ed. Production costs of stills will be lower. Also the costs of displaying the ad. Video screens and other media cost more initial cost and more operation costs. Like the scene in minority report. How much energy/money does that take to run? Oh and did you notice how Tom Cruise and most everyone else in that scene just kept walking by. This day and age of eco friendly,go go go rush society, and kids having the attention span of a goldfish, I think you are going to reach more people with stills than video. You look at a still and you get the message instantly. Nike, Calvin Klein, Mountain Dew the message they convey is interpreted as soon as you see the add. They have only a brief moment to display and convey the message before the consumer moves on to other things. When it comes to video you have to stop and watch it takes seconds, even minutes to get your point across. You have to give up some of your time and make an effort to watch said video. Some people will watch but most people will ignore it and keep on moving. Video will have it’s place I’m sure, but to captivate and convey an instant message about your company and product, stills will be the most cost effective, easiest, and instantaneous way possible.
The evolution of our current mindsets and methodologies will prevail. Those that will suffer are the ones that are unable or unwilling to move with the times.
Does this mean, since I have even more overall exp w/video than stills, I’m poised for the future as a result of my past? (and present?)
video news has been around for decades and has not killed print news. what has killed print news is online “print” news. like print and video, stills and video will continue to coexist peacefully. the medium by which they are delivered will continue to change, but the two, the static and the moving, are fundamentally different and both will remain.
“Oh wait? Did I make those last points with statements that were in motion?” You did, but I didn’t click on the play button. Playing a video takes time, which I’m not necessarily willing to spend. Instead, focusing on your text, my mind flew past the crappy stills representing the videos. As content continues to compete for our attention, stills will remain important for conveying information instantly. Regardless, thank you for an interesting post.
[...] quem acredita que o video nas câmeras DSLR veio para ficar, eis aqui um bom artigo que aponta 2009 como o ano que iniciou essa revolução no video, assim como uma [...]
This is a great article and probably ahead of its time for professional shooters. I suspect that the majority of your readers are not pros but, like myself, are amatures who have no intention of going pro. Since they aren’t using the gear already available for serious amatures to shoot video, they are using dSLRs precisely because they are interested in capturing still images. For advertising and wedding/event pros, you’re absolutely right: the business of photography is changing, however photography itself, the art form, is not.