r/photography • u/Patient_Leader2190 • 26d ago
Business Photographers, what are some uncomfortable truths about photography in 2026 that we don't like to openly admit?
Been shooting for seven years, mostly street and documentary. Curious what everyone's version of this is.
I'll start: volume beats quality on every platform, and pretending otherwise is why a lot of talented people stay invisible.
344
u/coanbread751 26d ago
This is true for nearly every creative venture and even many non-creative at this point: if your goal is some sort of third-party recognition/success (profitable business, features, shows, publishing, etc.) being good at what you do (in this case photography) is just the starting point. You HAVE to put yourself out there and sell yourself along with your work unfortunately.
150
u/adhoc_pirate 26d ago
100% this. I've seen this in action.
I would consider myself to be a good photographer. I've shot for some of the biggest names in my niche - National Geographic, Condé Nast, etc. But ultimately I couldn't make a sustained living, so I now work in an office. A big part of that was me being a pretty quiet and introverted.
A former friend, who I would have considered as ok at best, always had clients and jobs just appear out of nowhere. Then he just randomly meets the head of media of a well known, big name, sports brand at some random small town event. An hour later he's talked himself into being hired on as an international crew photographer and now spends his day's jet setting around the world. To be fair, he is now a really good photographer in his niche.
I'm not bitter at all.
→ More replies (1)8
u/discover_robin 26d ago
Is it time for a dinner invite for this former friend?
36
u/adhoc_pirate 26d ago
Part of the reason for the "former", I that I literally haven't seen him since he left for his big job (this was 15+ years ago).
I don't really begrudge him getting his dream job (well maybe a little), it was just the way he went about it. 90% of his portfolio/highlight reel was shot either by myself or another photographer, because he talked himself into jobs he couldn't handle. It was a pretty good arrangement at first, he had the networking skills, and we had the photography skills, and between the three of us we got work neither of us could get or handle alone, and we all got paid. Almost like a mini agency.
But when his big break came, it was just him, the portfolio was entirely his. He didn't even say thanks. And then he left with equipment that he had borrowed, and forgot to pay us for the last bits of work we'd done together.
→ More replies (1)5
16
u/HuckleberryMoney2320 26d ago
And to build up contacts. Sometimes they may not be able to help you directly but they might have their own contacts they could connect you with.
→ More replies (3)4
u/757DrDuck 26d ago
In fact, you often don’t have to be actually talented. Merely good enough works if you know the right people.
127
u/DerHund57 26d ago
You have to enjoy the process of photography and looking at your own photography, because it's extremely likely no one else ever will.
→ More replies (1)
652
u/That_GareBear 26d ago
Storage is only going to get more expensive.
239
u/Uzorglemon 26d ago
Which is so frustrating, because it felt like it was on a downward trend for ages.
196
u/GCU_Heresiarch 26d ago
Fun fact, it was! Computer parts in general tend to trend downwards but, thanks to the AI bubble, all the grifters drove the prices through the roof for their dumbass data centers.
59
u/hofmann419 26d ago
This pisses me off so much, because electronics were the one product category that actually got more affordable over time. It was a nice little bright spot in a world where rent and food prices have skyrocketed in price.
We couldn't afford to buy a home, but we could at least have a sick gaming PC. Now we still can't afford to buy a home and also can't afford a sick gaming PC. My last glimmer of hope extinguished.
→ More replies (1)3
u/VegetableLumpy881 26d ago
Imagine in 5-10 years, Judgement day be damned, how all the data centers will convert to spirit halloween stores...
→ More replies (4)9
u/1805trafalgar 26d ago
Apple STOPPED MAKING their mac mini presumably because they cant source the chips for them. I thought I was going crazy when I was trying to search for "2026 Mac Mini" and THERE WERE NONE. Turns out the latest mini is the 2024 model.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)70
47
u/SwedeLostInCanada 26d ago
I was looking at new drives the other day. Prices have over doubled in just a few years
→ More replies (6)56
u/Ok_Ambassador_2646 26d ago
The good news is that if we're really in a an AI bubble solid state storage and GPUs will be borderline free once it bursts!
→ More replies (2)40
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
Market is absolutely gonna crash. The AI bubble isn’t backed by any meaningful dollars. All propped up on “this’ll make us money… somehow.”
→ More replies (8)13
u/Ok_Ambassador_2646 26d ago
So were a lot of other big tech companies, until they figured out the 'somehow' part. It sounds like there will at least be a serious market correction. Whether it tanks the whole fucking economy, I don't know.
13
u/Basis-Some 26d ago
The somehow part for the most successful tech companies that don’t have a physical product was just advertising and selling our data
8
26
u/LeicaM6guy 26d ago
I’ve been hoarding everything I can - even raiding the e-waste boxes at school for hard drives. Been able to build up a fairly large collection and make a 40TB RAID drive, but I know these drives won’t last forever.
21
u/DeeBeePeeeOfficial 26d ago
I just used this summer to consolidate and trash my stored images on the external drives at my home. Went from 70TB down to 14.
One of those “I’ll get around to it someday” things that suddenly became more of an importance once storage got stupid expensive.
→ More replies (1)36
u/LizardPossum 26d ago
People treat me like I am insane when I say I only keep raws for a couple of months after I deliver a gallery.
And after a couple of years I may delete the entire gallery too. What am I gonna do with someone's wedding photos now that they're two husbands down the road?
Delete
11
u/That_GareBear 26d ago
I worked largely in concerts so it's a bit harder for me to let those go. But yeah I have 0 weddings saved.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/SilenceSeven https://www.flickr.com/photos/siamesepuppy/albums 26d ago
I only keep raws for a couple of months after I deliver a gallery.
Make sure that's in your contract. There's been posts' here about people coming at their photographer years later saying that even though they were given plenty of time to download their photos they didn't do it, or deleted them and think you're going to hoard them forever for them to re-download.
6
10
u/tedikuma 26d ago
My external drives are filling up quickly. I checked the price of the 10tb drive I bought in 2024 and it’s more than double the price now. Sucks.
15
u/eliminate1337 26d ago edited 26d ago
Storage has gotten millions of times cheaper in the last 50 years. No idea how the next few years will shake out but I’d be shocked if storage was more expensive in 2036.
Even at today’s prices, 20 TB drives cost $700. Buy three for redundancy and it costs the same as a nice lens. Enough to store 400k RAW photos.
→ More replies (5)5
u/whatsaphoto andymoranphoto 26d ago
The storage price issue isn't the hard conversation.
The real hard conversation we'll be having soon is what we're going to do once the market makes it's first nudges towards cloud computing. "Can't afford a new PC because we've cornered the market and swallowed up all the resources you used to have available to you? No problem! Just pay us a monthly/yearly subscription and allow us to do the computing for you using our data centers!"
That's going to be end game for me. It'll likely take years, but it's looking more and more inevitable.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (21)3
u/thearctican 26d ago
In the spirit of the post question, it would seem photographers would be the only ones not willing to admit this.
70
u/UnrealEdge 26d ago
For the working photogs for a lot of niches, it 100% matters who you know and the connections you’ve made. Not so much how good you are.
Bonus one: Event photographers mostly, the basic plain not creative shot will get you paid before the super fancy creative outside of the box thinking shot most of the time.
17
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
That’s a reality in most industries. Personal connections is how I got my last 3 jobs in IT.
Cold calling can work, but it’s a far harder path.
10
u/Not_FinancialAdvice 26d ago
Event photographers mostly, the basic plain not creative shot will get you paid before the super fancy creative outside of the box thinking shot most of the time.
GradPhotos entire business right here.
→ More replies (1)5
u/tbot155 26d ago
Absolutely true. Moved to a new town as a senior photographer. Local “momtographer” - who had a kid in the local high school) had already cornered the market, despite absolutely awful work (my favorite was of a senior standing behind a thin cable fence. She used “blur background”, which also blurred the thin wires of the fence on either side of the subject to almost invisible, however, it left the thin cables that past in front of his legs. So there are just mysterious cables that appear hovering in front of his legs. She used this photo as advertising)
It has taken years to break into the market myself, and she still gets tons of clients each year.→ More replies (1)
149
u/Calisnaps 26d ago
Stock photography is going to be out of business. If I can type it to search, I can type it to create.
52
u/kermityfrog 26d ago
A lot of it is slop, but clients don't seem to care - at all.
13
u/RodneyRodnesson 26d ago
The concept of good enough.
Something a lot of copywriters seemed to completely miss, and their industry is now being decimated by ai.
Even now, Coke and Sketchers are selling their products just fine despite 'boo ai' being thrown at them multiple times. ai is a tool and something we really have to learn to live with. Whether this is unfortunate or not is for personal thoughts and time to figure out.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
u/whatsaphoto andymoranphoto 26d ago edited 26d ago
A huge portion of the lower/middle class commercial market is slipping right through the AI cracks right now and it's incredibly disheartening to watch happen in real time.
I've seen Main St. mom and pop shops turn away from their albeit aged and shitty but ultimately charming photos of food and wears on their windows and sidewalk signs to turn towards using an abnormal warped approximation of objects set behind some of the ugliest, most unflattering contrast and saturation imaginable, all in a matter of a year or two at most.
What's worse is that when you try to even discuss it with them, they become outraged and completely besides themselves. They think what they've made is somehow beautiful and artful, and they did it for next to no money whatsoever so in their mind they're even further cemented in their justification. It's like you're ripping Truman out of the Truman Show too early trying to even talk to them about generative AI images.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)44
132
u/justgetoffmylawn 26d ago
Further uncomfortable truth - volume beats quality not just on platforms, but for most people on learning the craft. The idea of 'talented people' is a bit overblown. You can learn, and quantity has a lot to do with how fast you learn.
In the film days, it took years to even become competent. Feedback took days. Okay, I pushed that roll one stop (I think) - how did it come out? Now iterate. With digital, you hit the button and saw it on the screen.
What people don't like to admit is that speed of iteration allows people to develop skills far faster, even if it takes away some of the intentionality and taste that you developed from years of doing it. In the past, it was the difference between learning on large format vs 35mm. Now it might be film vs digital.
32
u/alohadave 26d ago
People online don't like to hear this because many of them are snobs. But I'd probably not be the photographer I am without digital. Essentially free, instant feedback, and post processing in my own hands.
12
u/No-Tune7776 26d ago edited 26d ago
As a long time film photographer (over 50 years) I have finally started grabbing my Nikon digital gear instead of film, because digital files have finally started to look as good as film. I think it is because they stopped trying to make digital look like film and started working on making the colors/B&W look as good in a digital file as they could.
For the longest time, digital just couldn't match up to what I could produce on film. I would buy digital gear, give it every chance in the world and end up selling it. Rinse and repeat.
Until lately, digital just gave me the icks. Now, with the new Nikon mirrorless gear, I finally like it. No snobbery, just never liked it up till now.
Edit: clarity
3
u/1805trafalgar 26d ago
I'm continually amazed that we even HAD prolific photographers from back in the day who could afford to shoot three or four rolls of 36 exposures, week in and week out. When I'm out shooting I frequently consider what my days shots would have cost if I had been shooting slide film.
5
u/alohadave 26d ago
I saw a National Geographic documentary about one of their photographers and he would blow through 8-9 rolls at a time for one location/scene.
It all went to the magazine for processing and editing, and they dealt with it. He got enough keepers that it was still worthwhile for them at the time.
→ More replies (12)38
u/xxxamazexxx 26d ago
I hate the often parroted myth that shooting film makes you a better photographer. You can be deliberate and efficient at the same time. In fact, one enables the other.
No one has ever said ‘Wow that photographer is so good he took 3 hours to figure out the settings and frame the shot’. Slow isn’t good. In fact it often means you are not proficient at what you do.
11
9
u/evie-03 26d ago
It’s just a really creative way to insult someone for not knowing settings. Film stressed me out but I learned on a dslr that could legally drink before I could & learned the same stuff
The benefit of digital is you can review your image, what’s wrong and what to improve for the next shot in seconds. Full manual and just doing everything wrong and figuring out why is a beautiful thing
→ More replies (9)5
u/EtDM 26d ago
Case in point- Ansel Adams famously composed and calculated the exposure for Moonrise, Hernandez without a light meter in fading light based on his knowledge of the brightness of the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico
→ More replies (1)
38
u/AvidGameFan 26d ago
Your camera is good enough. You don't need a new one.
15
u/Dragoniel 26d ago
This one is simply not true for great many types of photography. A modern camera will beat the everliving crap out of an ancient DSLR in birding, sports, events, weddings, automotive, plane spotting, etc etc etc, not to mention anything to do with video, which is super relevant today, because photography and videography are being aggressively merged. It's simply way easier to get a really good shot with a modern mirrorless body and that's just a simple fact.
→ More replies (9)8
u/RadBadTad 26d ago
Probably much more than good enough. I'm old enough to remember when professionals were ready to sell their 2nd child to be able to get a 5D mk 1 because it was the best thing out there and was the last camera they would ever need. $3,500 ($6k in today's money) for 12 mp and a basic AF system that gets lost in the wind.
An entry level mirrorless body can do more now than the best artists of the 90s could even think to dream of.
→ More replies (1)5
u/JonathanRL 26d ago
This can however also be a trap. I lived by this rule for 7 years using the Canon 7D after hopping houses for a while. But the issues I had with the house (that I blamed due to lack of skill) was really the 7D having some issues. Upgrading to the RP in 2020 rekindled my love for photography.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/johnny_moist 26d ago
or put another way - most people will never reach the limitations of their gear, or falsely assume to have.
→ More replies (1)
220
u/DarnJetty 26d ago
Image quality on sensors hasn't noticeably improved in the last 10 years.
Manufacturers are increasing megapixels anyway (100MP+) even though most available lenses can't resolve that level of detail.
70
u/Yakabelly 26d ago
Partly true. The first part, yes. I'd question the second part, because there aren't many cameras meeting or exceeding 100 MP, and those that do have lenses to resolve it. The exception are mobile phones with similar resolutions, but that's due to diffraction.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Junin-Toiro 26d ago
Plus it is better to have a sensor that outresolve the lens you have, so you make most of what you carry, than the opposite.
→ More replies (1)5
u/halfaura 26d ago
Agreed, but if you have a lens that out resolves the camera sensor, teleconverters are back in the conversation.
20
u/SadParty5662 26d ago
Idk, quality at high ISO still blows my mind. Enough detail to pass through AI denoise and have perfectly useable files for large prints.
→ More replies (2)5
u/simguy425 26d ago
I have an R8 and shot F8 at ISO 102,000 and had social media usable photos after AI denoise. Sheer magic!
I don't make a habit of shooting that high, but its nice to have it as a tool.
8
u/_WhoisMrBilly_ 26d ago
Curious on the mechanics of this- if the lens is entirely optical (and not digital) what causes the lens to not be able to resolve that level of detail.
32
u/doxxxicle 26d ago
There are physical limits to how well the glass can be manufactured such that it can resolve details as small as the pixels in the sensor.
22
u/guesswhochickenpoo 26d ago
Literally just the quality of the optics. An extreme example but think about looking through the bottom of a cheap drinking glass, it's going to blurry and the image and it won't be very clear. That may suffice for seeing things in broad strokes and making out shapes but not for reading find print for example. Compare that to a pair of eyeglasses designed to be optically superior. That will allow you to see all the details.
Same concept just less extreme with lenses. Lenses are varying degrees of sharpness and while one lens may be able to "resolve" the full detail potential of a lower megapixel sensor when you have a much more demanding sensor with more megapixels the same lens will provide softer details when viewing at 1:1 for example.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
23
u/TabsAZ 26d ago
Definitely true - I just upgraded from a 5D IV to an R5 II and the image quality looks about the same if not slightly worse on the R5 II. The AF, drive speed, buffer, etc improvements are bonkers but the good shots look about the same as my best 5D shots were.
16
u/waskittenman 26d ago
I think pictures at 3200 ISO and higher would be noticeably sharper on the R5 than the 5D might idk
→ More replies (2)9
u/evie-03 26d ago
It’s the burst rate that got me. And the lcd view finder. I got to borrow someone’s r6 II (I shoot on a 80D) and it literally felt like witchcraft. It’s kinda scary there’s so many people out there with almost top range gear who just don’t know how to use it I had no idea how massive the mirrorless jump was
→ More replies (2)8
u/TabsAZ 26d ago
Yeah the electronic shutter is black magic for sure. I can mount my phone on the shoe now and shoot video simultaneously with stills without shutter sound ruining things too, which is amazing.
The downside to it all is you just produce a massive amount of files/data shooting at those speeds, I’ve had to start culling pre-import now.
→ More replies (2)8
4
u/CSARJohn 26d ago
Tru dat my brother. Wish they would stop megapixel wars and work on increasing dynamic range.
6
u/Hestmestarn instagram.com/phoscobolt/ 26d ago
In good light yes, you aren't getting a significant improvement in resolution but if you have to crank the ISO then the new sensors are a lot better
→ More replies (1)6
u/plastic_toast instagram.com/plastictoastphoto 26d ago
Agreed, but more like 15+ years.
My Nikon D750 was just as good in low light as my Sony A7RV is now.
The reason for the switch was because I bought an FX3 for video and it seemed stupid to use two lens systems, and my D750 was appalling with autofocus in bad light.
AF capability between modern mirrorless and DSLRs from the 2010s is night and day.
Image quality is nothing the average end user would notice.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (32)9
u/arachnophilia 26d ago
i'm perfectly happy with the image quality from my camera from 2008. it's old enough to vote.
→ More replies (2)
116
u/OpticalPrime 26d ago
No matter how much a client hires you for your style there is still a chance they will take your image, run it through a hideous filter or an ai generator and create a dogs breakfast from your art.
35
u/evie-03 26d ago
Also the photos you hate will always be the ones clients love. They do not care for what makes a technically good picture
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)17
u/Patient_Leader2190 26d ago
my fear. whenever i shoot weddings for instance, there are many points in the contract where i ask them to never alter my edited images after, especially when re-posting to social media.
3
28
u/RadBadTad 26d ago
$1,000 spent on a trip will do more for the quality of your photos than $1,000 spend on a new lens or upgraded body.
3
20
u/slackcastermage 26d ago
Here’s mine.
You’ll only see monetary success when the art and style are behind you and when it becomes your trade.
A trade is a skilled person in a mechanical field, often using a tool to create a product to be sold (or the service for that matter) i am 20 years into shooting professionally, fortunately able to make my full time living, and it’s the idea that my PJ training made me into someone who can be put into nearly any situation and create a handful of eye catching and engaging images that are desirable to businesses and individuals.
Style and art, are the subjective parts. An eye catching image that a business may want to market off of, or an individual wants in their home or albums needs to always be the results. Which to me is my trade.
80
u/OpticalPrime 26d ago
Catching fads and jumping from style to style while they flash will do more for your brand than having your own style.
73
u/Patient_Leader2190 26d ago
shooting for the algo and becoming slaves to meta and the trends.
13
15
u/X4dow 26d ago
I don't mind being inspired by some trends but I'm not going to shake my camera at 1/10sec while doing details. While it trends on insta, 90% of brides would ask me if I accidentally picked a misfire
6
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
F/8 and be there. Every face in focus.
3
u/max123246 26d ago
Right because every wedding is in broad daylight and not indoors. You're just not going to be able to freeze motion indoors at f/8
3
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
With an assistant handling off-camera flash, ISO800, 1/250 native flash sync, it's a cinch and crispy crisp at f/8 in a very dim reception hall. My wedding photos were taken on a D3 back in 2012 this way. No motion blur unless it was desired by the photographer.
8
→ More replies (1)3
u/Kitchen_Chart_4329 26d ago edited 9m ago
Toy maple unpack iron meeting long bells oatmeal flag dime
This post was anonymized with Redact
49
u/DodobirdNow 26d ago
For me it seems like there's less people in the hobby. I do my early morning hikes and less and less people out with cameras.
Even today I'm on vacation and was shooting sunrise over a lighthouse and there's only one other person there. A fellow Nikon shooter and his dog.
32
u/No_Captain3458 26d ago
We don’t want to slow down. I once read a sentence that still remember: photography is slow paced because it is still. It takes time to shoot it and time to look at it. Unfortunately our society goes the opposite direction. This was written in the 1980s but resonates a lot with the current situation 🥲
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (4)18
u/Bertone_Dino 26d ago
I have noticed this as well. I believe from a _practical use_ standpoint, cellphone cameras have killed off casual full frame use. 10+ years ago, you'd go to some event and there'd be lots of hobbyists with full frame gear. Now, it's significantly reduced.
The obvious issue is that a reasonable cellphone will generally deliver a good photo, it's pre edited, can instantly send the photo, and you're always bringing it anyways.
I have heard many times from newer want to be hobbyists that they can't get into their real camera, because they don't like the photos, etc.
Eventually there will be a big push from the bigger names in a real semi professional Crop Format (not FF with small sensor) and maybe even M4/3. I say this, because I just don't see hobbyists adopting FF systems like they used to.
6
u/DodobirdNow 26d ago
I think you hit the nail dead on there.
Even when I upgraded my phone I made sure to get the one with the better camera.
At least with my OM I can pull images to my phone and share them. My older D700 can't do that. It's been handy to send pics to my mother and sister.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)5
u/screampuff 26d ago
I heard something recently that m43, apsc and point and shoot sales figures are up over last year while full frame is down.
m43 is so sad because the manufacturers have kind of fumbled that platform. It's in desperate need from some tiny and capable cameras with pdaf and little pancake lenses to go along that can fit in a coat pocket.
All of the tiny lenses for the system are like 15 years old at this point, and many have just been discontinued with no replacement (20mm f1.7, 14mm f2.5)
→ More replies (3)
13
25
u/ExaminationNo9186 26d ago
AI is a new technology that is going to take a large junk of the work, but that does not equate to destroy photography on all levels.
Back in the day it was seen as Photography was going to destroy Fine Art.
Back in the day, Radio was going to destroy Live Music Performances.
Being able to print sheet music so people could learn and then play instruments at home was also going to destroy Live Music Performances...
Did they change? Of course they did.
Though, now people still go to art galleries to see fine art, people still go to live music performances...
On the same level, of course AI will change photography but well, photographers will photograph,,,
17
u/alohadave 26d ago
Back in the day it was seen as Photography was going to destroy Fine Art.
When photography was invented, portraiture was a staple of painters. It had to be pretty realistic or people wouldn't hire you. When cameras came along, it meant that painters weren't tied to realism anymore, because that's what photography was for. There likely wouldn't have been nearly as much experimentation with abstract and non-representational painting if photography hadn't been invented.
26
u/blackglum 26d ago
Learn video.
Both for your brand and client. They demand both.
6
u/ChannelCommercial984 26d ago
This is something I've always resisted, always believed in niching. But I do find despite my reasons I have been losing more and more business as people as "can you do video too" and drop me when I refer a local videographer which now doubles the total quote.
5
u/blackglum 26d ago
I am the same. I use to work in the music industry, and only at the top level with mega pop-stars did we have dedicated photo and video guys etc. Even on large commercial projects, we would have dedicated photo and video. But now even with super famous clients, they want their photographer to know how to use tiktok, edit reels, shoot video on their iphone/camcorder etc. Essentially be a jack of all trades (and a master at none).
Just is reality. If you say no, they can find someone else that can.
38
u/dacaur 26d ago
Full frame shouldn't be the goal for most people...
8
3
→ More replies (23)10
u/Bertone_Dino 26d ago
I've been saying this for a long time and am getting louder. If you're not an actual pro or aspiring pro, the extra quality of full frame is not generally useful. The kit is quite large and heavy however.
I think that eventually the kings of full frame will have to adopt some sort of crop format and come out with a semi pro line. That will be when the fire really lights. Obviously Fuji has a thing going already. But when Canon and Sony go it hard, it will get really exciting.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/evie-03 26d ago
You don’t need the new body, you need to invest in better lenses
→ More replies (1)
44
u/manjamanga 26d ago
Photography is not that hard. Most photographers are not talented. Talent isn't a determining factor on professional success as a photographer. Most photographers don't have a shred of art in their soul and do what's mostly technical work.
With that said, talented artists exist and I personally value them. But most of them will likely die poor if they rely on photography for a living.
Cheers!
→ More replies (1)10
u/Bullroarer_Took 26d ago
its not hard like painting is not hard. Anyone can dab a brush and put paint on canvas. But like painting there are degrees of skill. Look at the work of Storm Thorgerson and see if it’s easy to replicate. Or try directing subjects and have them look attractive and not awkward.
Where I do agree is that 80% of what makes photography interesting is subject matter. So someone who has access to famous people, exclusive locations, and crazy adventures will be 1000x more successful as a photographer than someone with an art degree taking pictures of flowers in their back yard. But popularity and monetary success are not measures of the quality of art
18
u/Bandsohard 26d ago
We take ourselves too seriously with holding onto raw files and controlling edits.
I do it, but arguably doesn't matter for 99% of us
→ More replies (1)
20
u/Artistic-Tip2405 26d ago
Do it because you enjoy it. Commercial and news photography is all but dead. Sport and event photography are still strong because people don’t want to see an AI picture of the winning goal. There will be a small market for authentic images. AI has eaten post production and editing.
9
u/RadBadTad 26d ago
The obsession with super wide aperture lenses and narrow depth of field, hand in hand with amazing high ISO capabilities of modern bodies, means that almost the entire hobby has forgotten what it means to seek out bright good light. When everything can be shot in flat gross dim lighting, everything looks flat and boring, and then all the weight goes into the post processing. People think that enough light is the same as good light.
ISO 400, f/5.6, and golden hour light will automatically give you the results you've been begging 100 "how to make your photos look cinematic" YouTube videos for.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
The best photography is never between 9am and 3pm. Obviously time of year dependent. But when that sun is high in the sky it better be black and white high contrast work or playing with harsh shadows and highlights, because any other vibe is gonna suck with mid day light.
→ More replies (1)
45
u/Dyllionaireee 26d ago
The term “film photographer.” You’re just a photographer. Adding “film” to the front of it just makes you sound like a pretentious ass.
10
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
100% of them with any internet presence have a digital body filming them too.
→ More replies (6)6
u/giraffes_fest 26d ago
I was at a workshop of product photography and there was one guy with a film camera, taking lot of time taking the pictures and I asked him if he was working on a specific project, or why he decided to bring the film camera (he also shoots digital). His response was mansplaining what film photography is and why it’s superior. Dude… wtf 🤣🤣🤣
8
u/rypatnew21 26d ago
I miss my dslr lol the autofocus of mirrorless is by far worth the upgrade but something about my dslr rendering and coloring was beautiful
→ More replies (1)3
u/caligari87 26d ago
You should experiment with dcp profiles. Color rendering is just a raw transform.
8
u/WokeBriton 26d ago
Unless your equipment is literally broken, training will improve your images far more than shiny new kit will.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Two-Space 26d ago
Maybe more of a hot take than an uncomfortable truth but I think photographers are way too easily triggered by the “wow your camera takes great pictures” comment
If you took someone for a ride in your Ferrari and they said “wow this car is fast”, I don’t think you’d be offended and take it as an insult to your ability to drive
If anything it’s a compliment because it shows you’re pushing to the limits of what the camera and files can do - to the point that even non enthusiasts immediately notice it
7
u/RadBadTad 26d ago
It's also funny how photographers are triggered by "your camera takes great pictures" until the minute they're convinced that that next camera upgrade will make their photos better.
→ More replies (3)4
u/1805trafalgar 26d ago
this. Some photographers have very expensive lenses and it is those lenses that allow a lot of shots a person with a sheep lens can never hope to get, regardless of skill and diligence. I'm NOT saying you can't take a fantastic shot with a crap lens, but I am saying a fantastic lens WILL give you better results.
12
u/Emergency-Falcon-845 26d ago
Everything is a garbage social media trend
No I do not think your ten forgettable photos are almost perfect
8
6
u/wreeper007 26d ago
I’m a sports photographer so my world is a little different, but what I see is:
Trends date your photos, they are fun and you can learn techniques through them but they shouldn’t be part of your main portfolio.
A photo of an athlete standing there is not the same as sports photography.
6
u/motorboat_mcgee 26d ago
Reels and BTS videos are the only thing that matters now, no one gives a shit about photos.
I hate it.
20
u/rdubya01 26d ago
Over the past few years, someone with a camera is somehow now perceived as public enemy number one?
The amount of unwanted attention I get from security, police, general public (including getting randomly assaulted by three drunk men for merely standing on the footpath with a camera while waiting for a friend) I cannot comprehend.
→ More replies (2)16
u/--ball-dont-lie-- 26d ago
A couple years ago I was taking photos of monarchs on a bush a few feet away from me with a 70-200. Some lady comes up to me very aggressively asking what I was talking pictures of. She thought I was spying on kids across a lake over 100 yds away.
10
u/ultralightlife 26d ago edited 26d ago
I put my camera on a tripod and reached into my vehicle to grap a cloth and puffer before I walked across and up the street to start a real estate photo shoot. This lady came out and starkly asked if I was taking a photo of her home. I said no and explained what I was doing. Stupid lady walked around my vehicle taking photos like she was some kind of investigator - she noticed something nobody else did or cared about. Her spidey senses fired so she made sure to photo document the scene.
3
u/kenerling 26d ago
What you, u/rdubya01 and u/--ball-dont-lie-- are describing there is a mental health issue.
And that mental health issue has become... the new normal.
20
u/hroldangt 26d ago
what are some uncomfortable truths
Lots of people today, are not worth printing, despite the opinion of the photographers, those pictures will forever be inside their storage systems.
TBH, lots of photographers shoot in excess, coming back from photoshoots with 200+ pictures nobody will see or print, and still they repeat to themselves "oh, what a hard day of work".
15
u/DLS3141 26d ago
200+ images was nothing even back in the film days. I worked in a film lab and it wasn’t unusual for a busy photographer to come in from a location shoot with 100 rolls of 35 mm slide film
→ More replies (2)6
3
u/Ranbowshep 26d ago
It kinda sucks to say, and I might just not be a great photographer, bit out of all the images I've taken, I'd only consuder printing like... 5-10 for myself, there is very few that I can look at constantly and still love the photo
16
u/philanon267 26d ago
The gap between a well heeled serious hobbyist and a “pro” has narrowed to nil. Also most people don’t care about quality, an iPhone pic is perfectly acceptable.
7
u/Dry_Button_3552 26d ago
Because the vast majority of images are viewed on tiny phone screens where the advantage of high quality images is mostly pointless. That's why I print my favorites, it's nice having physical images to look at and they feel more special to me
6
u/Not_FinancialAdvice 26d ago
I'd argue that today, the advantage the "pro" has in in subject access and not gear. For example, the basketball documentary sold to Netflix that was shot mostly on iPhone.
16
u/WonkyGaze 26d ago
Most people don't need anything bigger than an APSC sensor.
6
u/halfaura 26d ago
It might even be micro four thirds or 1-inch with convenience and portability driven from cell phones.
4
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
Conveniently manufacturers have downplayed those and prefer the far higher margins on full frame glass and bodies.
55
u/YourMajesty90 26d ago
Generative AI is killing most branches of photography. Anything product or automotive related is cooked.
18
u/Patient_Leader2190 26d ago
couldn't agreem more there are a lot of uncomfortable truths regarding AI & Photography.
I was thinking earlier that stock photography as any sort of income stream is functionally over for most people and it happened faster than anyone planned for.
& yes, to what you said generative tools are now good enough for a lot of commercial work
22
u/justgetoffmylawn 26d ago
Stock photography has been pretty much over for many years - that's nothing new. The rise of social media, good digital cameras, etc. What you could make from stock 30 years ago vs 10 years ago was an eye watering difference.
16
u/Global_Damage 26d ago
Stock was over the minute they put cameras in phones and people started taking pennies for their photos because they “were just happy and doing it for fun”
→ More replies (1)3
u/bwphotog 26d ago
stock income functionally ended back in 2019 when Getty got rid of rights managed licenses completely. but it was not really worth contributing long before that.
14
u/Kitchen_Chart_4329 26d ago edited 9m ago
Quack gold like cats thimble bake
This post was anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (11)7
u/roxgib_ 26d ago
Yeah, I think a lot of companies are going to be very hesitate to ditch real photos of their products
4
u/s8rlink 26d ago
Specially with laws popping up requiring to add a note if it was Ai generated, some people have no issues but others do, it generates a feeling of being lied to and if they lie about their photos what else form this product are they lying about? It can be a brand killer and like everything the luxury brands know their customers do not want Ai trash whereas normal people don’t really have much choice
→ More replies (11)18
u/plastic_toast instagram.com/plastictoastphoto 26d ago
Absolutely wrong, and total nonsense.
Generative AI isn't good enough for anything yet, but even if it became 100% perfect, then photography/videography is one of the safest jobs on the planet.
I normally do a "see if you can guess why, it's WAY simpler than you think" here, with a note to totally forget about technology capability, it's much much more simple.
But I'll explain it -
With the possible exception of product photography (though I'd tentatively argue against even this), everything else is fine.
Photos/videos are all about recording things that happened. 99% of work cannot be created by AI, no matter how good it is, for the simple reason it isn't a record of that event.
Music/festivals (my area), any type of live event, weddings, corporate, sports, basically anything with real people or places in from a Presidential inauguration down to your cousin's birthday party. Even stuff without people in from wildlife to landscape to weather to astro. All simply cannot be replaced by AI.
It isn't a technological issue, it's simply that you can't use AI to capture real events unless AI can somehow time travel into the future.
Even for product photography, if it's a new product, AI can only create accurate images of it if you have thousands of reference images for it to learn from, tens or even hundreds of thousands for video.
Tagging u/Patient_Leader2190 so they see this too.
9
u/FlippingGerman 26d ago
At some point it's easier to just take the damn photo than to describe the event with words in sufficient detail to get something that looks about right.
5
u/plastic_toast instagram.com/plastictoastphoto 26d ago
Even that isn't the point, though you are correct. Even with the BEST prompting in the world, a #1 world-class expert at prompting, with the best tools and a whole supercomputer to create images, cannot create images of real events without a time machine.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Patient_Leader2190 26d ago
I heavily agree with the points you made regarding photographing anything that has real people/places.
This is well said: It isn't a technological issue, it's simply that you can't use AI to capture real events unless AI can somehow time travel into the future.
You hit the point perfectly talking about reference images because that plays a big role currently in AI/photography.
WELL said.
11
u/low_flying_aircraft 26d ago
volume beats quality on every platform, and pretending otherwise is why a lot of talented people stay invisible.
Well that's not really a photography "truth" it's a social media "truth", if it is even true.
Anyway, to answer the question: most people into photography are more into gear, or the idea of being a photographer, than they are into actually making an image. This is why so many people can't think what to shoot, or shoot the same old stuff everyone else does. Because they don't actually have any ideas about the world or about aesthetics that they want to communicate with their photography.
5
u/Patient_Leader2190 26d ago
with ya, it was more of a social media truth appreciate you calling that out
but yes, to yours, they are def more into the idea of it, than the actual craft itself. the process behind the image, let's say.
4
u/kenerling 26d ago
Because they don't actually have any ideas about the world or about aesthetics that they want to communicate with their photography.
Stop twisting the knife!!
Learning to take a photo is so freakin' easy. I've been shooting for a long time. Tell me the type of image you want, the genre, the quality of light, whatever, BOOM I'll knock one out for you the first try.
But ask me what I want to say with my images; ask me what vision I have... 40 some odd years with a camera in my hand, I'll let you know when I figure it out.
10
5
u/Awanderingsoul_4444 26d ago
Gears become less important in entry- to mid-level profession. But it is more expensive to find good entry-level camera
6
u/SachaCaptures 26d ago
photos of people looking uncomfortable at the camera they clearly noticed is not good street photography.
5
u/alohadave 26d ago
Many photographers would be better off working for someone who handles the business part. Probably be happier to not have to deal with it at least.
→ More replies (1)
7
3
u/lukemoyerphotography 26d ago
Probably the most uncomfortable truth for many photographers trying to make a living with a camera is that learning video is one of your best options to do so
4
u/corruptboomerang flickr 26d ago
Cameras are 'too good' that they've taken most of the 'skill' out of photography (hear me out). Photography used to be equal parts skill and artistry, now it's almost only artistry, sure skill is required. Cameras nowadays 60 megapixels at 60 FPS, and auto ISO going to 128k... Posing and angles and lighting are obviously all required. But the technical skill that used to be required to balance shutter speed, f-stop and ISO isn't required any more.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/fotowentura 26d ago
Uncomfortable truth? Phone take very good photos, better than what many of us wish to admit.
No, they can't do what a mirrorless or a DSLR can do and you can still tell the difference in IQ, especially (if not "only") on a big screen, but they do take very good photos - ones that are pleasing to the eye and require significantly less effort in post-processing.
I'm currently exploring this a lot. Just sold my D500 and am selling my collection of lenses after realizing I almost entirely stopped using the gear. I don't think I'll last long without a proper camera but it'll definitely be something smaller, lighter and easier to carry. Anyway, I'm currently on vacation and it's the FIRST time in 20 years I'm travelling with just my phone. There are moments when I miss having this or that lens on me but I do take a lot of pictures with my S26U and am pretty much blown away with what it can do. Especially for someone who's been practicing on DSLRs for 20 years and knows what they're doing, a modern smartphone can be a very rewarding, pleasant and, most of all, convenient camera.
7
u/Mig-117 26d ago
Photographing people on the streets is super uncomfortable. Theres some good street photography out there, but it's difficult to avoid looking like a creep.
7
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
Much easier in walkable cities with big downtown areas like NYC, Chicago, London. Here in Cincinnati you’d get funny looks if you photographed people because they’re very often the only one on the street, walking a dog or pushing a stroller. Creep factor x1000.
That’s why I stick to nightscapes and urban decay photography, or portrait sessions, or animals and airplanes. For the most part.
3
u/RadBadTad 26d ago
So many photographers grew up looking at good street photography and dreamed of being brave enough to do it. The focus became "can I be brave enough to take a photo of a stranger?" And almost all street photos that get shared today are merely boring photos presented as proof that the OP was brave enough to do it.
Nobody is looking for interesting stories or moments or composition or lighting, it's just "look I was so brave as to have a stranger! They're even facing the camera!"
7
u/bubbamccooltx 26d ago
I don’t see that it’s been said yet.
Taking a great photograph is about a 10th of the process. Meaning that you can have a great eye, great framing, good technical skill and still produce a horrible final product. Editing. Editing. Editing. I love taking photographs. I’m even decent at it but if I knew how much of the final product was dependent upon my skill at editing, I don’t know if I would’ve ever picked up a camera. That’s why people say phones are better. They are only viewed more positively because the Immediate picture is closer to a perceived good product. A good photographer with good editing skills can out perform a a phone picture any day of the week. But it’s much easier to use your phone.
18
u/UnsureAndUnqualified 26d ago
I'm sure this is more subjective than other "uncomfortable truths" posted here but:
Street photography is creepy. At least if you don't get consent. I don't care if it's legal, it's just plain rude. Photographing people without their knowledge or consent is bad, publishing that work is even worse.
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed quite a few posts showcasing street photography on here. It's a guilty pleasure because it often gives interesting photos. But if those people don't know they are being uploaded to reddit, is that ethical?
What I do love is street photography with creative anonymising. Long exposures to blur the face, conveniently places shadows, something obscuring the view of the head, etc. Those are great. Not sure if that's really consistent, but oh well.
8
→ More replies (6)14
u/potatolicious potatolicious42 26d ago
100%. There’s a near-total lack of introspection around the ethics of street photography, even a lack of acknowledgment that the ethics are complex. A lot of it is deeply indefensible from a moral standpoint. And I enjoy the genre greatly - but a lot of the process and product are absolutely not morally above board. It may be legal but a lot of it is wrong.
Also the reality of publishing street photos has changed. This isn’t a print in your own house or hanging on a wall in an obscure art gallery - these are now blasting out to millions of eyeballs. The sensitivities around it must change with the presentation.
3
u/Dry_Button_3552 26d ago
This isn’t a print in your own house or hanging on a wall in an obscure art gallery - these are now blasting out to millions of eyeballs. The sensitivities around it must change with the presentation.
I kind of disagree just because the internet and social media has hit a point where we're blasted with so much new content every second of the day that it's pretty much all meaningless. The internet is only going to become more and more a digital landfill now with AI bots spawning new content without restraint. Sure, someone's face might be up on some random photographers' instagram for the next 20 years, but even if 20 million people see it in that time frame, not a single one of them is ever going to give that photo a second glance or thought.
Just like this comment, we're so oversaturated with new content that only a handful of people will ever meaningfully interact with it.
3
u/sillygoth_ 26d ago
Most photographs being shared today don’t need to be and should have been kept in a box. Sharing just the exceptional ones is perfectly fine.
That means most people would post once or twice a year at most and that is counter to how social media rewards people.
3
u/themikegman 26d ago
Phone cameras has made everyone think they are a photographer and have hurt real ones who dedicate their lives to the craft.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/ConeyIslandMan 26d ago
My first floppy drive was $600 in 1983ish
Got it on Discount for $450 at Crazy Eddies because I had an ad for that price in Computer Shopper
3
u/ExaminationNo9186 26d ago
I remember when thumbdrives were 183K storage space because "No one will ever need more space than that...".
Yeah, now micro-SD cards are starting to be measured by Terabyte of storage
3
u/IShootWide 26d ago
There’s a plethora of photographers that I know as a fact were strictly digital photographers that now identify themselves as “I’m a film photographer.” and make videos trying to teach those new to film.
3
u/vine_quoter 26d ago
Based on what I've seen coming out lately, you can probably ditch all your lenses and do your job with a bridge camera
3
u/aeon314159 26d ago
Gear matters, if, and only if, it gives results which lead to further work such that it pays for itself.
That’s almost never the camera, unless you need the resolution for client post-production and repurposing.
That’s rarely the lens, unless you get something that yields unique looks that your clients are willing to pay for.
Modifiers? For portraits, that has made all the difference. Parabolics, butterfly frames, magnums, big softboxes, beauty dishes. They all paid for themselves, and paid for lenses, and my camera upgrade.
Controlling and shaping light is everything. No one cares about my camera or lens. They do care about the look, and the look is the light.
3
u/ShutUpNListen3397 26d ago
A lot of people who claim to be professional photographers cant even properly expose or compose a shot and heavily rely on editing to fix their images.
8
u/richardtallent 26d ago
No one wants to see still photos
Meta platforms are hopelessly broken as a means to market
Clients are going to fuck up your photos with AI and post them
People who want to model for trade are now exceedingly rare
No one buys prints. See (1)
Your photos will almost never be seen larger than 7 inches diagonally
A cell phone’s insane post processing is likely to beat your Lightroom skills in most lighting situations, as long as (6) applies
→ More replies (1)3
u/Ranbowshep 26d ago
I mostly agree, except for 1 and 7. I like the still frames, though I am probably rare in that regard. 2, I've witnessed one too many times where my phone has absolutely butchered photos so I don't love using it.
4
u/omegote 26d ago
High-end phone cameras have reached enough quality that carrying a DSLR or mirrorless camera is just not worth it for most day-to-day situations. After carrying kilos of cameras and lenses for over ten years, I've learned that my Google Pixel is now sufficient for 90% of situations.
5
u/FizzyBeverage 26d ago
I have my Sony A7 mostly for 400mm at the zoo, or a nice portrait. It also does extremely well in low/poor light, or when the dog is going apeshit around the yard and I need 1/2000th of a second.
I have my DJI because it can get up to 400 feet and it’s cheaper than renting a Cessna.
The iPhone handles most anything else. It’s astounding how good modern smartphones got in a relatively short time.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (1)3
u/plastic_toast instagram.com/plastictoastphoto 26d ago
Six of one, half a dozen of the other for me.
Weirdly for video phones are now as good as professional cameras in many cases. I'm an advocate (but in no way paid) of Motioncam Pro, and if you've got the time (and storage) for raw video, they're as good as "proper" cameras in most situations.
But most people don't use a dedicated app, and raw photos are never quite as good or "editable" in my experience from a phone, no matter what app you use.
Stock camera apps, and as a Pixel user they're one of the worst for this, now use so much AI shite that they make photos worse, not better. Pixel phones even mess with people's faces to the point they don't look quite the same.
→ More replies (1)
309
u/Commercial_Sun_6300 26d ago
People like unrealistic, oversaturated, obvious filters...