Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
"We", meaning the current crop of grumpy, old men who are calling ourselves photographers, are totally uninterested in the convergent technology. On the other hand, the marketing, engineering and management staff who leave the universities now and in the future, and who will work for our clients in a year or five, and the photographers who studied at the same universities at the same time, will see the possibilities. Possibilities for better marketing, more efficient use of online media, cost saving etc.
Example:
I do a lot of industrial photography. Some of it is documentation of production processes for use in internal documentation, marketing and training of internal as well as customer staff. So far, I've had inquiries from two clients if I would be interested in doing videos in addition to photos of these processes. One of the clients is a Nikon user, and asked directly if I would be able to use a Nikon D300s for this.
For him there are cost savings having one person doing the whole process, and it simplifies his communication. For me, should I choose to accept the job, using an all Nikon system means large cost savings compared to buying a separate video camera. Yes, the software is a challenge, but those young, hungry photographers coming after us already know how to use that software. This is what they teach in universities these day. Luckily for me, I've already done some Flash animation, which makes it easier to adapt.
It's important to remember that, 15 years ago, almost all photographic work was published on some kind of printed media. Today, printed media are shrinking, while internet and other interactive media have opened up a huge, new potential for photography, video and animation. Since I'm a graphic designer as well as a photographer, I see the whole world changing under my feet.
Only four years ago, I was dragged into digital photography, kicking and screaming. Now, my attitude is that adapting is smarter than dying. It's great fun walking the streets of Hanoi with the Fuji and an 85mm, but I can't expect to make a living that way, not now and not in five years.
As for Hasselblad and Phamiya, they are solidly placed in the tiny, little market segment where bleeding edge technology may suddenly take over, simply because it makes sense from a conceptual as well as economical point of view. It may not happen overnight, but the change will come, just as laser and ink-jet printers took over the computer printer market. Anybody remember line-printers? I used to work at a computer center that had a bunch of those. That's less than 25 years ago, and current teenagers haven't even heard of them.
Edit:
Never underestimate the need for high quality output. Today, people accept to see video on the internet in a tiny, low quality frame. Competition will drive that quality all they way to full HD and beyond. As for corporate customers, the need is already there. It's just a question of awareness.
There will obviously be photographers in the future too who do only stills. The question is if they will be many enough to keep the high-end manufacturers like Hasselblad and Phamiya alive, particularly if longer production runs make convergent systems cheaper to manufacture.
Example:
I do a lot of industrial photography. Some of it is documentation of production processes for use in internal documentation, marketing and training of internal as well as customer staff. So far, I've had inquiries from two clients if I would be interested in doing videos in addition to photos of these processes. One of the clients is a Nikon user, and asked directly if I would be able to use a Nikon D300s for this.
For him there are cost savings having one person doing the whole process, and it simplifies his communication. For me, should I choose to accept the job, using an all Nikon system means large cost savings compared to buying a separate video camera. Yes, the software is a challenge, but those young, hungry photographers coming after us already know how to use that software. This is what they teach in universities these day. Luckily for me, I've already done some Flash animation, which makes it easier to adapt.
It's important to remember that, 15 years ago, almost all photographic work was published on some kind of printed media. Today, printed media are shrinking, while internet and other interactive media have opened up a huge, new potential for photography, video and animation. Since I'm a graphic designer as well as a photographer, I see the whole world changing under my feet.
Only four years ago, I was dragged into digital photography, kicking and screaming. Now, my attitude is that adapting is smarter than dying. It's great fun walking the streets of Hanoi with the Fuji and an 85mm, but I can't expect to make a living that way, not now and not in five years.
As for Hasselblad and Phamiya, they are solidly placed in the tiny, little market segment where bleeding edge technology may suddenly take over, simply because it makes sense from a conceptual as well as economical point of view. It may not happen overnight, but the change will come, just as laser and ink-jet printers took over the computer printer market. Anybody remember line-printers? I used to work at a computer center that had a bunch of those. That's less than 25 years ago, and current teenagers haven't even heard of them.
Edit:
Never underestimate the need for high quality output. Today, people accept to see video on the internet in a tiny, low quality frame. Competition will drive that quality all they way to full HD and beyond. As for corporate customers, the need is already there. It's just a question of awareness.
There will obviously be photographers in the future too who do only stills. The question is if they will be many enough to keep the high-end manufacturers like Hasselblad and Phamiya alive, particularly if longer production runs make convergent systems cheaper to manufacture.
Last edited: