Due to the prolific rise of the internet and people buying less magazines, budgets for fashion shoots have become less and less. This brings up an interesting question ‘What is the future of fashion photography?’, it appears perhaps the future of the finely constructed fashion magazine photoshoot may be potentially under threat. But with change, comes opportunity and fashion photography will continue to exist in one form or another. People will continue to purchase fashion/clothing and of course imagery plays a huge part in exhibiting/advertising changing fashion trends to the public, designers are likely to continue using photography or videos to advertise their new fashion lines.
‘How will fashion photography exist in the future?’ appears to be the real question, this at the moment is an open question. But the following article published last year in the Irish Times, gives a very interesting insight in to how the future of fashion photography may turn out. It appear’s that some of the new up and coming fashion photographers (i.e. Garance Dore) are defining a new style of photography, Street Fashion photography. This appears to be a more reality based style of fashion photography, much of todays fashion imagery is heavily photoshopped and expensively constructed. It will be interesting to see if this new budget conscious and reality based style of photography becomes the new norm in the world of fashion as editorial budgets continue to be cut back.
Personally I hope that the current form of glossy mag fashion photography continues to exist as I feel this form of photography has a special place, but it will be interesting to see how this creative and new style of Street fashion photography progresses as I believe it could be equally effective. Check out the link below-
A great image from photographer Garance Dore for Elle Magazine below-
As most of you are aware, over the past year or so 3D has become the biggest news to hit movie making and photography. 3D movie making has become the norm with many directors embracing it with open arms, it also appears most of the general public are intrigued by it too. I remember seeing Avatar in 3D, this was the first movie I had ever seen in 3D and I must admit it was impressive. But was it so impressive that I long too see every movie and television program made in 3D instead of 2D??? No, I don’t!
As the viewer, 3D gives a more true to life impression of the world. You actually feel as if the movie you are watching is happening in the same room as you, which is obviously different to the 2D effect where you feel separated from the movie itself. But at the same time, I don’t always feel compelled to be part of the movie itself. I actually sometimes quite enjoy having the feeling of the ‘spy’, spying in on a world that I play no part in. That is part of the magic for me when watching a film, that special mix between involvement and separation that 2D gives you. I do enjoy the complete feeling of involvement 3D provides me with though, so I hope both forms of Movie making will continue to co exist in the future.
3D is a great development in movie making and I look forward to seeing where it will continue to head, I wonder if one day they will make 3D movies without needing the glasses? This to me is another slight downfall of 3D movie making and to be honest, I do not particularly wish to put silly sunglasses on every time I switch the TV on or go to the cinema.
This brings me on to still image photography, 3D is now being hyped up as the future of the Still image? Again, I am intrigued to try it and to see the results I can produce using this technology as I always embrace trying new things. Do I think it will replace the 2D image as my photography weapon of choice? NO. Panasonic and Fuji are clearly setting there sights though on converting people to 3D.
When I began to fall in love with photography, I fell in love with the 2D still image and will continue to feel extremely passionate about this medium.. Photographs to me are paintings created with a camera and I don’t feel 3D will recreate this form of art. (The same goes for Video, I feel video has it’s place. But will it replace still images.. not in my mind, I love the 2D still image!)
This remains an interesting debate, remember when pro photographers turned their noses up at digital photography? And stated in no uncertain terms that ‘digital would never replace film!’. Well look at the world now, due to the faster turnaround times and more time constraints in professional photography (due to digital becoming the norm). Digital has become the only route for the top Pro photographers, despite the fact that film arguably produces better results. Digital is just too darn convenient to go back to the times of waiting a day to have your film developed
I wonder if the 3D vs 2D debate is the same? Maybe a lot of people bemoaning 3D are people that simply don’t like change, perhaps 3D will take over from 2D completely in the future. All I can say is, 3D will never replace 2D in my world. I may end up using both formats but I will never lose my love for the 2D Still image. Which side of the debate are you on?
Will professional photography be relevant in ten years from now?? Will photography still be relevant at all in ten years from now?
According to some articles I have come across, Video is the greatest and latest thing to happen to DSLR cameras. ‘Video isn’t a still image and the still image won’t die’ you might say, but according to some pundits eventually computers will have such amazing processing power that the user will be able to take still images from video footage using high-tech software to do so. This seems like another revelation that could seriously shake the way we do photography in the future, perhaps making stills cameras a niche product?
Anyway, back to the original question. The Future of Professional Photography? Camps are completely split on this question, one half claims that quality still matters and the consumer will still pay to have a professional photographer provide them with images of a high calibre. The other half feels that digital cameras have made photography ‘too easy’ which has to led to the rise of the amateur who pretends to be a professional and will do shoots for free for the client, also clients are regularly plucking images they need from the internet from stock and for free from google images etc.
Both arguments have very valid points, but what is clear, is that the future of professional photography is in doubt. Afterall, who needs to pay a £500 fee for a professional photographer when they can go on google images, use their iPhone camera function or ask Bob down the road to do the photos for free on his shiny new Nikon entry-level DSLR???
My hope is that quality wins through, as I feel true photographic artists should be rewarded for the beautiful creations they share with the world! My main concern is the true artists will go, as you will no longer be able to earn money from photography.
Check out these interesting articles/links about the question posed-