There’s no doubt that recent technological changes are having a major effect on photography both in terms of how photos are taken and who takes them, as well as on the market that professional photographers rely on to earn their living. Advances in digital photography have lowered barriers to entry and this, in conjunction with the explosion of the internet, has resulted in the market being flooded with imagery not only by professionals, but by semi-pros and amateurs. From a buyer’s point of view, photography has never been this readily available or cheap. From a photographer’s point of views, conditions are growing increasingly tough.

Take news and celebrity photography for example. Publications are making more and more use of photography from people who’ve never had a picture published before. We’re not just talking your keen amateur with an slr here. No, they’re taking advantage of the fact that the majority of people in the street have a camera with them, a very basic one admittedly but good enough to print in most cases. You’ve probably got one on you now – that’s right, it’s called a mobile phone. And now that you’re starting to see phones coming out with five mega-pixel cameras built in, you’re going to start seeing really quite acceptable image quality. Obviously it’s not going to be as good as pro with the latest top-end Canon or Nikon, but it’s news that gets published, and the grainy photo from the person on the street who got a snap the second the bomb went off is going to have far more newsworthiness than the pin-sharp one taken five minutes later. The same goes for celebrities. If they thought running from press photographers was bad enough, they’ve got a treat in store when people cotton on to the fact they can make money from their mobile when they see Madonna in the ready meal section of the local supermarket. Picture agencies including Big Pictures and Reuters are starting to exploit this fact by encouraging the general public to send in their photos.

There are plenty more examples of the professional market being eroded by the sheer volume of photography being taken. Whereas taking a decent photo used to be the preserve of photographers with an understanding of the effect light has on film, digital technology has made it much easier (not to mention cheaper) for your average Joe Bloggs to experiment and keep tweaking their shots until what they see on the back of the camera is what they’re after. Film just didn’t give you the liberty to do this. Don’t get me wrong, this can be a great thing. With metadata embedded in every file you also have a record of your camera settings, allowing you to more easily analyse your work and learn from your mistakes. But what this does mean is that while digital technology isn’t going to turn you into a Cartier-Bresson or an Ansel Adams, it is allowing a lot of ‘good enough’ photographs to be taken. This is why many believe that standings in photography are slipping across the board.

Photographers are complaining of past clients either starting to take photos themselves where they may before have commissioned a professional, or using a part-timer with rates so low that no professional (with all the costs of running a photography business) could even start to compete.

This is before we even get onto stock photography. Photographers have slightly shot themselves in the foot by providing so much stock over the past few years (and again, digital technology has probably added to the volume of stock being shot professionally) that many clients who previously wouldn’t have considered it are now turning to stock rather than commissioning photographers to shoot to spec. There is so much imagery out there that can be bought off the shelf that a large number of scenarios that might need illustrating have already been shot. There are, however, dangers for clients using stock. Firstly it might only be a ‘closest possible fit’ solution and not exactly what they need, and secondly if the stock photography they use is licensed non-exclusively (or royalty free even) there’s nothing to stop a competitor using the same imagery. A bit like turning up to a wedding in the same dress as the bride’s Mum, it can be rather embarrassing. That’s exactly what happened where two big computer manufacturers, Gateway and Dell, decided to go down the stock photography route for their press campaigns.

The latest twist in the stock photography story has come with the latest internet trends. Flickr in particular is providing an ocean of imagery on which photography buyers are quite happily going fishing. And the added problem here is that plenty of people who put their photos on Flickr are so flattered to be asked to allow their photos to be used in a commercial context that they waive their rightful fee. Which again has a devaluing effect on the worth of photography. If this isn’t bad enough, Yahoo have recently announced that they’re incorporating Flickr tags into image searches made through them. Ie this is creating one huge stock library. Google are no doubt not far behind, but without all the human manpower behind keywording everything on Flickr, they’re having to rely on a pretty smart little game to encourage people to label images for them (I sadly have to admit to once having the daily high score on it).

In conclusion, there’s a huge shift going in the world of photography which you’d be wise to bear in mind if you’re thinking of jumping into it as a career. There is no doubt that the best photography will shine out like a beacon above the rest – just make sure that it’s yours.

©Duncan Soar 2007

Further Reading

Guardian article, 15th December 2007: Reaching for the Stars (article on citizen journalism)