At 11:29 PM +0800 12/23/07, karl shah-jenner wrote:
Rich writes:
And on
what, exactly, was he spending $10k per year on in digital gear?
Lenses, printers, bodies, computers or what--and how much of that
gear would he have anyway if he was using film?
Emily's price list (earlier) seemed accurate - actually kind of
conservative, it's worth looking that over again. I'd reiterate
that a $1000 2D video card is a very normal addition to a pro
photographers computer. A fileserver is a really handy addition,
especially if you're running more than one photographer. If you're
printing, add the print server and RIP. regular bare drives for
safe storage etc..
it's not a film vs digital issue, it's a pro-in-business vs a
plethora of people ready to shoot for nothing issue.
Realistically, looking at the annual equipment expense that a wedding
shooter could incur if s/he had the income:
Up-to-date computer = $1800
New monitor every other year, not CRT = $250
External HDs = $600-$800 go into permanent storage unless you discard the shoot
Camera bodies = $2500 each for at least 2, good for 100,000
"activations", approximately 700 activations per camera per wedding,
about 60 weddings per year = 42,000 activations.
Lenses = $2000 per camera - liable to be dropped, have alcohol
spilled on them, need regular maintenance and cleaning.
Digital projector for showing shoot to family afterwards - $1200
Computer application licenses - $1000
Advertising = $9600/quarter page in each glossy monthly regional magazine
Office rent = $4800 if in your own home.
eCommerce company = $400 with surcharges for managing printing
I dunno. That's just a start and it makes $10K seem kinda reasonable to me.
As for the cost of materials - think about it this way. You shoot
film you're stuck with the color bias of the film and the roll
length. You have lots of camera bodies, each loaded with a film
specially biased towards exterior light, interior light, fluorescent
light, caucasian skin tones, oriental skin tones, non-white skin
tones and you endlessly choose between the bodies, each of which has
its own set of lenses, in order to realize the colors accurately, not
necessarily using up all the film during an event and then take all
the film off to be processed and wait 24 hours or more, hoping that
the lab doesn't make any mistakes and that they'll keep track of all
your film correctly and you'll get it all back and then spend a day
sorting through it all to get it in order, arranging all the prints
in a presentation portfolio as you go
or
you shoot digital and spend hours color correcting your shoot, send
it out for the prints or prepare the slide show which your nice
studio and expensive projector then make it possible for you to show
the family, as well as uploading all the images to a commercial
server, locate all the email contacts and send out the email telling
everyone where to find the images.
Digital is no less costly than film, put I really prefer the
flexibility of color correction which digital permits. So I doubt
I'd ever go back to film.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
