The reality of photography today

Everybody is a photographer! Everybody has a camera - absolutely everybody. They're in your cell phones, in your tablet, in your laptop. Heavens, they practically fall out of cereal packets!

Somewhere it was written recently that over 90% of the photographs ever taken were taken in the last 5 years. That was predictable when wedding photographers began to take more than the standard couple of rolls of film. Time was when a busy wedding photographer would take 6 rolls of 36 exposure film at a wedding. That's 216 photographs. That would be whittled down to a dozen for the album and one for the mantelpiece. Now, wedding photographers take a few thousand photographs at a wedding. Then they have to spend the next few weekends ploughing through 99.5% garbage photos to find half a dozen good ones.

Amidst all this, peoples interest in photography is dying. Every great, technically challenging photograph that makes a photographer proud has been done many times by many others and published free for all to see via Flickr etc. The challenge has become pointless when it seems everybody else has already done it.

Zoom compacts were all the rage then when cellphones began to carry good quality cameras, zoom compacts dropped off the market. The ability to zoom was nice but not a priority. That's pretty interesting because I argued on a camera forum that a digital SLR was overkill. It's bulky, heavy, over priced and does not connect well to anything. In fact, digital SLRs are clunky old school devices that belong in museums. All that pulling memory cards out to put them in readers to upload to a computer and then upload to online storage is for the birds! A cellphone uploads a picture as soon as its taken. No waiting, no cables, no card to fuss about with!

As can be seen from the cellpohone\tablet rise (Flickrs top 10 cameras are phones), people just don't find SLRs a good choice. I'll agree to that myself. I had a load of digital photography gear. I sold most of it and use a cellphone now.

Thirty years ago, my dad looked at me and announced he didn't think much of my investment in camera gear. His opinion was it was wasted money, given the poor income cameras produced. Roll on a few years and the income from cameras has reduced yet further. Another thing has happened too.

In the past, a secondhand lense would not depreciate. A secondhand camera would not depreciate either. In fact I remember buying a Nikon FM that was 20 years old, worked perfectly and which up until digital would have sold for what I paid. Now, digital cameras plummet in value as soon as they're purchased. New models come out more often than most people change their underwear!

As an example, the Panasonic gf3 was $500 new in 2011. Now they're $70 secondhand after just 4 years. Similarly, lenses plummet in value though perhaps not quite as fast.

Why I was looking at the gf3 is because I want to take photos of the milky way. Now I know that's been done by everybody and their dog umpteen times but I'd like to do it for myself. I was looking for something small and cheap. I'm pretty much of the opinion that I should sell off all my remaining camera gear. I know I wouldn't get much but it never gets used largely because of the bulk.

A few weeks ago, I went to the zoo with some other photographers. In fact it was April - about 3 months ago.

During that visit, I chatted with the group leader and he had sold all his DSLR gear and bought an Olympus mirrorless camera. His analysis was that image quality was the same despite the smaller sensor. The bug bonus was that instead of having to carry a big bag of gear, all he needed was what he could carry in his pockets. That had two advantages - ease of use and his gear was easier to conceal from villains.

That had me thinking more along the line of selling my stuff to buy something more suitable for what I do. I like my 17-85 lens and rarely use my 70-300 though neither has a ready equivalent in the micro four thirds format.

As I've probably said many times before, I'm not one for buying gear that doesn't get used. It's too common in photography for people to have multiple gizmos to cover every conceivable situation. That's garbage - such people are not photographers. They are gadget freaks. My philosophy is that if a shot gets away because I don't own item x then its not a calamity. I just make the most of the least.

Neither of my digital SLRs have had great amounts of use. To be frank, its just too much of a nuisance to carry them and as for the great bug heavy tripod... For me the question is whether to get a micro four thirds camera or a 1 inch sensor camera. The digital SLRs are for the birds!

One Million views!

Wow! I never thought my blog would be so popular. I guess it's time for the usual thank-you round like they do at the Emmies etc. So thank you, aunty Maud's left knee, thank you to the big tin of spaghetti that lurks uneaten in my closet and thank you Donald Trump for wearing the scariest attack wig I've ever seen. Really, I know exactly how I'd have done it all without any of you!

Seriously, a few moments ago, views clicked over from 999,999 to 1,000,000. I'm impressed that my blog has become so popular especially given that over the last 12 months posts have become so spartan due to my concentration on building my own home rather than taking photos.

Speaking of photos, I've been watching some entertaining shouting matches (can't really call them arguments nor debates) on the merits of different camera types. Basically the arguments go...
Cellphones are great because the photos are good and can be uploaded instantly.
Micro four thirds are great because they're smaller than digital SLRs and pretty much as good image wise.
Digital SLRs are great because they look impressive and have good image quality.

Now the reality is that people don't have a clue what they're talking about. For most purposes, cellphones are probably the best camera because they're lightweight and provide excellent image quality.

Bigger cameras come in more for long exposures, low light photography, action photography and peeping Tom photography where long lenses are needed. Conveniently ignored by the screaming masses are larger format digital cameras.

Really and truly though, cellphone image quality is more than adequate for 90% of photography. This is why compact digital sales collapsed and compact digitals sent off the market. Mirror less compacts were introduced to head off the decline in camera sales by offering a more convenient option than a DSLR. It's not enough though as phone cameras are just so darned good.

A few months ago I sold off most of my DSLR equipment. I kept two bodies that each cost over $1000 new that now, I'd get maybe $40 each if I sold them and a couple of lenses. The original expenditure of around $8,000 got me $1,000 approximately. I'm glad I sold it all though I should never have allowed myself to be talked into starting a business of such dubious prospects as photography.

In the old days, photography required knowledge and skill. These days with auto everything, there's no skill needed and an amateur with zero knowledge can pick up a camera and take a phenomenal photo. Now, that can be achieved with a simple cellphone.

This photo was taken off a back deck in a heavy rainstorm with poor lighting with my cellphone. Could a more expensive DSLR or interchangeable lens compact have taken a better quality image? I doubt it. The point is that for all save very specialised applications, DSLRs and interchangeable lens compacts are beginning to look increasingly like Dodos. Indeed, I love photography but 99.9% of my photography these days is done with a cellphone. I bring out the DSLR only when I want to do the kooky off the wall photos that can't be done with a cellphone such as this.

My question is, in the face of competition from cellphones, what are camera makers going to do? WiFi, Bluetooth and nfc are not going to save cameras from the Grim Reaper. Bulk is killing them and lack of instant upload ability. I suspect some form of built in photo editor is needed together with upload via a built in cellphone connection.

The great leader?

The adulating crowds gather around, waiting expectantly for their charismatic leader to appear. Slowly he appears from the balcony to a trumpet fanfare and cries of "we serve" roar throughout the crowd. Dissenters are summarily pounces upon, beaten and ejected.

Measures are announced where all members are required to have their photographs on file, their phone numbers, their addresses, their associates names and their own personal location at all times. All members marital status, sexuality and personal likes are recorded. Most information will be publicly available for all to use for their own ends. Information such as addresses and current location will be made available to anybody in exchange for money.

Translate "we serve" into German which would be "Zeig Heil". Translate " leader " into German which would be "Führer". Look into history where dissent was destroyed and ignored. Look into history to see how Hitler provided for all his people's entertainment and leisure needs, how children were catered for by youth movements.

Look also at Hitler's aim to unite the world under a Swastika. Now look to see how the world is united with the same blinkered fervor under a flag that says "F". Notice how dissent is suppressed by adulatory masses.

Look at how Hitler included everybody, embracing everybody then dealing viciously with dissent. Look at the way he bought public opinion with opulent acts of charity.

Am I the only person that finds Facebook to be sinister? Am I the only person to see the Führer of Facebook to have potential to be easily the most evil person on the planet?

Facebook has data on around quarter of the world's population. That's more than the KGB, CIA and Mossad combined. Already that information is for sale to marketers. Who is to say marketers are who they say? This database has power and absolute power to be a devastating tool for evil.

Is the Führer the new evil the world must confront? Is Facebook the new 4th Reich? How bitterly will people regret giving the evil empire as much personal data? How soon will Facebook show its true colors as the ultimate evil or will people remind blindly suckered into it?

Top ten reasons to close your Facebook account immediately.

Following on from my last post, it transpired that Facebook had my account flagged as some manner of fake, which is really strange considering most things on Facebook are pretty fake. As an example, I know people with 2, 3 or more accounts, all in different names. I know people who have accounts for their dogs and even for stuffed fluffy toys! None of those are remotely "real". There are even accounts floating around where the account owner has died and yet the account has not been removed. How would those accounts face an authenticity challenge?

Reasons to delete your Facebook account:
1. Facebook is an advertising and marketing juggernaut that will use and sell data to any government or organization it can make money from.
2. Facebook is one of the biggest Republican bludgeons of all time with a typically Republican lack of morality.
3. Employers and workmates trawl Facebook, looking for reasons to fire employees.
4. Privacy - you cannot expect privacy if you're willing to put your private life online.
5. Accountability - Facebook conveniently ignores national laws and constitutional rights, hiding behind a myriad of dodgy offshore data centers.
6. Facebook sides with online bullies who will report an account as fake while ignoring complaints about pornographic postings or harassment.
7. Facebook allows bucket loads of spam. There are literally hundreds of apps that churn out nothing but spammed invitations.
8. Facebook is the biggest time suck ever. People will sit down for five minutes and two hours later are still reading what uncle bubba had for breakfast.
9. Facebook is an addiction that gets people fired. At work, I've seen people with the Facebook app on their phones, sneaking their phones out to check Facebook every few minutes. I've seen them being given oral and written reprimands and even seen them being fired for their addiction.
10. Membership of Facebook actively erodes privacy and human rights because it becomes OK for whatever Facebook wants. People will go along with it as long as they can keep their Facebook habit going!

Here's the kicker... After I wrote and told Facebook they could keep their nasty account, they had the cheek to respond with this...

Clearly nobody read my response as this is a 100% automated posting. I'm very tempted to make up a fake ID and send it because I wouldn't mind betting the "checking" is done by a computer that just reads the wording in a photo. Wouldn't that be a scream? To be honest though, I'm not going to bother.

Without Facebook, I'm not constantly online at home. I actually turn my computer off. I have no need to keep checking what people I know and don't know are up to. None of my immediate family uses Facebook. They use email, telephone and old fashioned post. Many of my friends don't bother with it either. I'm even getting more done. The downside is I can't advertise my blog as much. On the other hand, Facebook advertising did not increase blog revenue noticeably. Financially, Facebook was nothing and a time soak.