Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography

Photography literally means "writing with light". Since ~80% of digicam
owners NEVER make any prints (per PMAI stats), I suggest they aren't doing
photography but digital imaging. This is a distinction that makes a big
difference in the future of photography - both film and digital IMHO:

We agree that "good enough" and convenience are what the mass of consumers
want, i.e., digital imaging. Future cell phone cameras (at 2MP in Japan
now and better OLED screens on the way) will probably displace current P&S
digicams as well as much of 35mm P&S and disposable camera use too.

Digital imaging and digital still/video cameras will be embedded in cell
phones and PCs, but not for the purposes of making quality images and
prints but to support everyday activities like videoconferencing and sales

I have previously expressed surprise that so few of the tens of millions
of new digicam owners doing digital photography have become photography
enthusiasts, as might be measured by photo mag subscriptions, photo book
sales, and related indexes. How can these indexes of serious photographic
interest be declining when sales of digital cameras have exploded?

This is important to digital photographers, whether they also use film
cameras (as many do) or not. IF you are making prints, if you are
concerned about image quality and composition etc., then you are doing
photography as a hobby (and the pros are another obvious category).

Currently, digital imaging supports digital photography. By this I mean
that the sales of millions of digital P&S cameras and related materials
and supplies for digital imaging provides the huge base on which higher
end digital photography sales are perched. The cost of developing high end
digital sensors and R&D and so on are largely provided by the mass
consumer sales base.

Otherwise high end DSLRs would cost thousands more dollars if they had to
pay off all high end R&D costs without these digital P&S profits. These
high end DSLRs provide a test bed for new sensors and technologies whose
costs was being recouped by mass marketing in future digital imaging
camera generations.

I am suggesting that the needs of the mass consumer digital imaging market
have now split from those of the DSLR users. That means the high MP
devices in today's DSLRs don't have much future demand in future cellphone
cameras or similar mass consumer products of the next generation.

I believe that we are about to see a split in the market between digital
imaging and digital photography. The mass of consumers seeking convenience
and "good enough" images for online viewing will be readily satisfied by
the next generation of cell phone cameras and embedded still/video PC
cameras and the like. Sales of digital P&S cameras will plummet. Who will
carry both a 4 MP P&S and a 4 MP cell-phone camera at the same time? Why?

With the mass digital imaging devices becoming commodity markets, the
current high end DSLR users will have lost their financial support from
the mass base of consumers. R&D costs for larger sensors will be higher,
as will the cost of IC fabrication plants to make them, yields lower for
larger sensors, and so costs much higher.

So digital photography is going to become much more of a niche market than
it currently appears to be. The mass consumer base will migrate to a
digital imaging solution that doesn't involve buying separate digital
cameras, lenses, or related products.

Are you happy with your current DSLR? Does it make nice enough prints for
your needs up to 8x10" or 11x14" or whatever is you usual maximum print
size? If so, will it be worth it to spend kilobucks on a new and bigger MP
camera to make similar sized prints or online images? Won't many current
DSLR users feel what they have is now good enough? Why will they want to
buy expensive new cameras every few years to get similar results?

Given under half-million photo mag subscriber base for the top rated photo
mags (for a $10/yr subscription fee), just how large will that digital
photography base be after the consumers have all left? Are there a million
people in the USA interested in photography - film as well as digital? How
many kilobuck DSLRs can you sell into that crowd, especially if they
already have a DSLR that makes a pretty decent 8x10" or 11x14", thank you!

I have called this the "digital bubble", and I think it will burst in a
few years. As DSLR prices fall below $700, the remaining holdouts of
amateur photographers with film cameras are now buying in, offsetting some
of the lost sales by people deciding what they have is good enough
already. But the number of film holdouts is limited, and can't support
many years of DSLR sales at current levels. And lower prices mean lower
sales volumes and profits for camera mfgers - hence the bursting bubble
analogy...

I am suggesting that digital imaging has not changed the underlying
support for photography as a hobby. So I don't think the numbers of people
interested in photography have changed or increased significantly, as
confirmed by photo mag and photo book and related resource sales. This
same loss of members and interest is afflicting other traditional hobbies

Most of the camera makers have bet the farm on digital, but only a few are
likely to survive the industry shakeout that seems inevitable. Will Nikon
make cell-phone cameras? Embed Nikon cameras in Nikon portable PCs? Will
the reduced sales of film and digital cameras, lenses and accessories be
enough to support the current industry, puffed up on digital P&S sales $$?

If the industry shakeout happens, then lots of folks with new DSLRs may
find themselves holding orphaned camera investments. Ditto film cameras.

The danger here is that collapsing digital P&S sales will take out the
mfgers of both the film and digital cameras we often argue over ;-) When
some players like pentax go under, this may impact MF and 35mm film users
more than others. Conversely, contax or minolta owners may find that hoped
for DSLR lines never make it to full production as the implications of an
imploding market bubble become obvious to corp. management. For others it
may not matter, as big corp. cut their losses on camera divisions as the
illusory nature of big profits from digital camera sales becomes clear
(i.e., with the switch by consumers to embedded cameras in phones and PCs)

In short, I think the major camera makers may bow out not because film
camera sales have plummeted, but because the digital bubble will burst.

Sadly, I don't see any way to promote photography as a hobby which will
offset these losses and enable supporting a large and vibrant
photo industry in the face of the switch to digital imaging. Do you?

grins ;-p)
bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************