I love the image above because it is a view that I have never seen before of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. It is in one of those images where I slap my head and say “how the heck did you see that?!” In the November issue of National Geographic, Jim Richardson has produced even more stunning images on a story on light pollution. And the truth is that these amazing photographs could not have been made to such a level of quality if it were not for digital photography.

Now much has been debated about the virtues and detractions of the technical and aesthetic characteristics of digital. Jim’s photographs are a testament to the brave new world we are entering with this revolutionary change in image capture (see more of Jim's photos by clicking here).

But I’m going to skip over this area of discussion and look at a slightly more serious issue of how the sudden surge in digital capability is affecting the viability of being a professional photojournalist today.

The combination of digital capture and digital delivery (via the web) is rapidly eliminating exclusive characteristics which defined what it means to be a professional photojournalist. Simply put, today’s digital advances are leveling the playing field between enthusiast and pro.

Digital SLR cameras are smarter than film cameras: they can auto focus, auto expose, and auto stabilize images resulting in photographs technically as competent as those made by many professionals. Plus, today’s image sensors provide latitude for exposure means photos (shot in RAW format) can often be pulled back, in post-processing, from poor exposure purgatory. Many professional film photographers built their reputations on their mastery of the finicky and unforgiving rigors of transparency film. Kodachrome was a hard beast to tame, and even harder to master. Now, with digital, almost anyone can take a sharp, well exposed photograph. Being a competent technician is no longer the unique hallmark of the professional.

Another province of the professional photographer was their ability for being in the right place, at the right time. The saying goes: “f8 and be there.” But now two factors are squeezing the pro. First, the ground below the pro is disappearing because most publications are less able to support as much time in the field as they once were. F8 won’t help, if you aren’t there.

Second, a rising wave is crashing down on the pro as more and more people carry quality cameras into almost every corner of the planet. Professionals now must compete with not just their colleagues, but pretty much everyone carrying a camera cell phone.

This sudden flood of competent images would not be creating as much of an issue for the pro, if it were not for the web. The wonderful phenomena (and I do think it is a good thing overall) of the interconnected, digital photography community helps erode another defining support of the professional photographer: the once exclusive ability to be published.  With the Internet, almost anyone can distribute their work (and even used by the same publications that assign professionals). The cell phone images from the London metro bombing in 2005 were an early marker on the path leading to a new world of image distribution.

Earlier this year, National Geographic sent Ken Geiger (a staff Senior Photo Editor and a damn good photographer to boot) to England to shoot images of Stonehenge (see more of Ken's photos by clicking here). The shoot was complex, required negotiations with park officials, used unique gear for shooting at night, involved travel from D.C., etc. The resulting images were wonderful and just what we needed for this important cover story. But one quick search of Flickr and I was able to turn up a number of decent images of the iconic monuments, such as this one by Lucille Pine of England. I can imagine editors at other publications, particularly ones which do not have the brand defining reputation that NGM has for great photography, might hesitate on committing the resources knowing a less costly avenue exists.

What it means to be a contemporary professional photojournalist is being challenged and redefined, ironically, by the very enthusiasts who have been attracted to the revered and mesmerizing beauty of still photography.

So what is the pro to do? What qualities will lift them above this newly leveled playing field? How will they survive? This will be the topic of my next blog.