karl shah-jenner wrote:
Rich asks :
: Wouldn't the real comparison be to include how much he spent on film
: and processing in that time, as well as time spent going back and
: forth to a lab and mileage and wear and tear on a vehicle?
Film processing could be costed in at 200%+, that's what I always did on top of my fees and usage charges. Prints at 300%
I never lost a cent on film or prints, they in fact made me money and the assistants always dropped the film in, and their fees were effectively paid by the customer - - I'd assume it'd be the same for anyone, so I never asked! Did other people actually carry the costs themselves?
But the cost the customer wants a reduction on is the *full* bill
*including* those fees.
Is the root of the financial problem for so many photographers just that
they were hiding most of their profits in the multiplier for the lab
fees, and now don't know how to back out of that position?
: And on
: what, exactly, was he spending $10k per year on in digital gear?
Camera bodies in ten years = 3 mechanical
Digital Bodies in 3 years = 9 digitals + lenses + software updates + storage media + hard drives.
Digital bodies in 7 years = 3. Two lenses attributable to digital,
$1700. (My choosing to upgrade my Tokina 80-200/2.8 to the Nikon
70-200/2.8 VR shouldn't, I don't think, be blamed on digital. Nor my
decision to acquire an 8mm fisheye.)
In my last upgrade I did give up on having two bodies, though, which I
probably couldn't have done if I did this professionally. Then again
the previous body fetched only $600 on resale, and would have been a
fine backup body (Fuji S2).
Computers and storage and software, though, you've got a good point
there. Then again, I routinely see pros talking about having spent over
$10,000/year in lab fees.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
