Interesting debate. I would like to think that the talent pool was there all along. The digital camera simply gave the masses an economic means for releasing this creativity. Note: I'm a landscape photographer who still works with (and appreciates) a slow, manual medium format film camera. And I have no problem with digital photographers surrounding me. Bottom line----- you have to work harder at showing the world an image they haven't seen a million times over.
Read this feature with great interest although I'm a fine art vs. stock photographer.
I agree that the loss calculation is grossly overstated and remind all who care that the digital camera and related technologies (e.g. Photoshop, etc.) were unprecedented game changers. Economics 101 taught us about supply vs. demand. As eluded to above, the digital camera is now ubiquitous with tons and tons of superior quality work now flooding the markets and computer monitors worldwide. Supply goes up, obviously price goes down. For those of us claiming to be professionals, the "flood" only motivates me to keep improving upon my craft. Lot of folks out there looking to eat another's lunch.
As for pirating/infringement, watermark your work if you're paranoid about unauthorized usage. Policing, or the impossible task of accomplishing it, was also mentioned before. Excellent point! Remember, if it's on the Internet, people assume it to be free. Do I condone this form of digital thievery? Of course not! However, until photo sharing/commerce sites/camera manufacturers improve upon their protection software/coding, the bloodletting shall continue. At this point in time---- reality bites!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Michael McAreavy.
The Digital Revolution
Interesting debate. I would like to think that the talent pool was there all along. The digital camera simply gave the masses an economic means for releasing this creativity. Note: I'm a landscape photographer who still works with (and appreciates) a slow, manual medium format film camera. And I have no problem with digital photographers surrounding me. Bottom line----- you have to work harder at showing the world an image they haven't seen a million times over.
Reality bites!
Read this feature with great interest although I'm a fine art vs. stock photographer.
I agree that the loss calculation is grossly overstated and remind all who care that the digital camera and related technologies (e.g. Photoshop, etc.) were unprecedented game changers. Economics 101 taught us about supply vs. demand. As eluded to above, the digital camera is now ubiquitous with tons and tons of superior quality work now flooding the markets and computer monitors worldwide. Supply goes up, obviously price goes down. For those of us claiming to be professionals, the "flood" only motivates me to keep improving upon my craft. Lot of folks out there looking to eat another's lunch.
As for pirating/infringement, watermark your work if you're paranoid about unauthorized usage. Policing, or the impossible task of accomplishing it, was also mentioned before. Excellent point! Remember, if it's on the Internet, people assume it to be free. Do I condone this form of digital thievery? Of course not! However, until photo sharing/commerce sites/camera manufacturers improve upon their protection software/coding, the bloodletting shall continue. At this point in time---- reality bites!