Emily writes: : Jeez, Karl. All that stuff makes $200/day look really bad, man! yeah, scary.. : the real question continues to be: : : If a member of this list, a photographer, actually proposed that he'd : be expecting to pay 100 pounds sterling a day for a portrait sitting, : which is what I understood Michael to be suggesting, how are : creatives ever going to beat a concept like Creative Commons? thats the thing, hey? Digital? people think it's CHEAP so they want it done for nix. Film? people think it's expensive so they don't want it on film. Either way it initiates the inevitable and wholely loathesome task of educating the prospective customer At the end of the process it remains very difficult to explain why digital is more expensive than film, even though it is, both in time and in equipment. I had an email from a photographer recently who talls me he spend $3000 in a decade on film cameras and $10,000 on digital gear in a *year* ($30,000 in 3 years) he sees it that he has to go digital to be like everyone else and s wondering what the heck he's doing chosing to be a photographer!. me? I'm sticking to film as much as I can. when I state a price and people go 'huh?!' and look aghast I say I shoot film .. they say 'ahh!" knowingly that still doesn't mean I'll get the job ;)
