I remember when being a Photographer used to be a career

When I first started out in the industry, I’d spend several days a month sitting in photographers’ studios. There was one I used so much that they used to keep a guitar for me to play when they were tinkering with the lights. I’d spend hours at castings, pre-production meetings, shoots and retouching. They were magical times and I remember them very fondly. But it feels like I haven’t done anything like that for years.

I know that it’s partly to do with moving into a senior role – but it’s also to do with a global change in attitude to photography.

It used to be thought of as a true craft performed by experts who instinctively understood what was going down on film. Thanks to the ubuquity of digital photography and the instant results it gives you, that’s no longer the case. The mystique is gone. The technical and mechanical knowledge is no longer an esoteric skill. The cost of shooting images is now zilch. And with all that – the perceived value of photography has dropped.

It’s the age of the keen amateur now. People are taking awesome shots and sharing them with the world. And their motivation isn’t money, it’s recognition. Most of these people are happier to get a thousand views on Flickr than a thousand quid in their pocket. And that’s obviously affected the photography industry massively.

Over the last few years it seems that more clients and agencies are wanting to just use stock imagery instead of doing a bespoke shoot. And thanks to the wonders of Photoshop, it’s simpler to spend a few quid on comping stock shots together than dropping a wad to get a photographer to capture the real thing in-camera. And things are moving in an even more frugal direction. The commoditisation of photography has led to agencies wanting even more affordable stock imagery. So we see developments like Getty’s tie up with Flickr and the rise of sites like iStockphoto and (the very ugly) Adography.

It all makes complete economic sense. And it’s just another part of the quiet seismic shift that’s been caused by digital over the last decade or so. However, like a classic case of Yin and Yang there are plusses and minuses. Yes, we’re getting images faster and cheaper. Yes, it’s handed a previously niche artform to the masses. Yes, it’s given us more choice. But at what cost?

Well, the problem with quantity is that you lose focus on quality. Like monkeys and typewriters, you’re bound to get something cool if you shoot enough shit. This is obvious on YouTube where there’s more video than you could view in 10 lifetimes but hardly anything worth watching. My concern is that we’re going to lose the craft skills that were so vital when I was an advertising youngster.

I’m a techy geek, as everyone knows, but I think we very often trust computers too much. I’ve seen it happen with typography – where people who’ve never had to work with a Letraset rub-down or a Pica-rule just assume that computers get the leading and kerning right first time. And I’ve seen it happen with writing where people can’t spell without the red, squiggly assistance of Microsoft Word. The basic truth is that if you use a calculator enough, you’ll forget how to do sums in your head. If we keep going down this road with photography, we’ll forget all those things that made it so great. We’ll devolve instead of evolve. And I fear for the loss of craft.

Am I alone here, people?