Cameras, Cameras, Everywhere

Who doesn't own at least one camera nowadays? If you don't have at least one box of electronics specifically designed to record digital images (probably both moving and still) chances are you'll have one on your mobile phone whether you want one or not. At every event you go to, chances are there will be at least one person taking photographs that will appear on Facebook the next day (if not sooner). What does this mean for professional photographers though – is there still a need for them?

Despite their number and prevalence the majority of snappers capture only two sorts of image – “my family, my friends, and my life” (the traditional family album shots), and the “unplanned news event” (citizen (photo)journalism).

Count the photographers

The latter type of photographs are now vastly more common than they were, as the people on the scene when the event happened have cameras where they typically didn't previously. However this lack of cameras on the scene was as true of professionals as amateurs in almost every case (and in the other cases was normally just a matter of luck). Nothing has been taken away from the professionals here, as they are still the ones at the planned events – like they always were, and due to the very nature of the difference between professionals and amateurs in terms of time, I cannot foresee this changing any times soon..

More interesting is the photographs of everyday life. There are only two differences between these amateur shots being taken now and those being taken during my childhood in the 1980s-90s – the volume and the visibility. The volume is a direct result of digital cameras – when you are restricted to 24 shots you chose carefully which frames you exposed, when you can take thousands and edit them after there is no consideration needed. This means you can afford to take a camera with you on a drunken night out. The visibility is a function of the internet – when you are restricted to prints in an album, only your close family and friends would get to see them. Now with Facebook, Flikr, and all the other sites, the world gets to see them. This is what makes it seem like its a new phenomenon, but it isn't. What this means for professionals though is quite different, these photos don't rival those of a professional who puts effort into composition, lighting, etc., in terms of artistic quality, so other than at the bottom of the professional skill range is there any real competition.

However what will it do for the “snapshot aesthetic” photographer when there is no shortage of snapshots to see? Works light Nan Goldin's “The Ballad of Sexual Dependency”.distinguished themselves not by the quality of the camerawork but by showing the world the unseen intimate lives of people they didn't get to see. In those days you didn't see anyone's family album, let alone the family albums of those from different subculutres. The Facebook generation though does see all this everyday - every member of the tribe with decent compositional eye can show the world the intimate life of them and their friends. Can the genre survive this? Not without changing itself it can't. In order to make money as a proffessional you have to offer a product significantly different or significantly better to what hte amaterus are offering, otherwise no one will buy it. Their niche has been blown wide open – now these professional photographers need to find a new one or die. 

References:
Allan, Stuart, "Citizen Journalism: Global Perspectives", 2009
Eadie, William F., "Twenty-first Century Communication", 2009
Warner Marien, Mary, "Photography: A Cultural History", 2006