Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why the camera industry is in the dumper  (Read 5655 times)
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #80 on: March 17, 2014, 03:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Well seeing as it was yourself who started this off by talking about switching to digital 10+ years ago, have a guess. As for those throwing in the cost of film, well they are the same idiots who are doing work for peanuts now and undercutting everyone. God knows why you think glamour and exotic locations have anything to do with this as many clients paid for film.
With wedding photographers, they shot very little compared to today, spent less time covering the wedding/doing PPing and could also sell prints to other guests, so possibly more profitable in that some of today's digital shooters.
Economies of scale mean it doesn't quite work like that.
But your FF gives a different look to a MF camera and wasn't even available then, so not comparable. And if you are shooting such huge amounts of film, why wouldn't you use 35mm. And if you were shooting that much MF, the client would be paying or you would be losing money.
Yes. And at the time digital was very, very expensive compared to now.
You are cherry picking figures from then and now and not comparing like with actual like. The cost calculator you used does not take into account anything to do with how photographic earning or the any particular business may have changed, so the figures are utter bokum.



I'm not at all sure you have a clue what you are on about. I'll let others decide for themselves.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 03:11:14 PM by Justinr » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #81 on: March 17, 2014, 09:00:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not at all sure you have a clue what you are on about. I'll let others decide for themselves.
You are probably confused because I'm not making irrelevant/dodgy comparisons or doing maths that doesn't add up. 
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #82 on: March 17, 2014, 09:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

It was not a work trip, but an extended holiday (and character building exercise, eighties in China...). Even then the sales from the photos paid the whole trip, all the expenses, for both me and my wife.

Those 1000 frames a day I shot on my last trip to Tibet yielded enough keepers to pay for the trip and then some. I do believe, like I said in a previous post, that having the possibility of shooting practically unlimited number of frames does result in better quality of top ten frames than stingy old school shooting with film. The rest 990 per day can go to the digital hell or heaven, costing nothing.
Not sure why people are comparing today with film when the debate started with this inaccurate nonsense.

There are several ironies about the digitalisation of photography that I reflect upon with a certain wry amusement. The foremost is the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by professionals; it was cheaper, quicker, more cost efficient for not only did it do away with film but also the necessity of having someone else do the printing, the photographer retained control of the whole process as Rob C. has pointed out. Now we are told that digital cameras have ruined photography because anybody can now do it cheaper, quicker etc.
Digital was silly expensive when it first started and all the cost comparisons with doing it now vs film have little bearing on changing to digital 10/12/14 years back. Things changed from film due to advantages of the new medium, but it certainly was not price for quite a few years.
When I first looked at changing it was a probably 1200 rolls of film, paid for 2-3 years upfront. A cost which one couldn't then claim back from the client, so effectively you needed to charge more to make up for the film expenses you were no longer getting. A tricky one that because as far as clients were concerned, they inaccurately thought you no longer had consumables.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #83 on: March 18, 2014, 02:57:45 AM »
ReplyReply

You are probably confused because I'm not making irrelevant/dodgy comparisons or doing maths that doesn't add up.  

Kindly stop making yourself appear an immature pillock.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 02:59:34 AM by Justinr » Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1277


« Reply #84 on: March 18, 2014, 06:03:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Those 1000 frames a day I shot on my last trip to Tibet yielded enough keepers to pay for the trip and then some. I do believe, like I said in a previous post, that having the possibility of shooting practically unlimited number of frames does result in better quality of top ten frames than stingy old school shooting with film. The rest 990 per day can go to the digital hell or heaven, costing nothing.

The 1000 frames a day thing is a representation that you as a photographer are spending less time thinking about what you're taking a photograph of (and how it will end up.) I know, I fall into the same basket: with digital it is very easy to activate the shutter 100s or more times a day with little regard to what is produced. Tricky situation encountered? Activate HDR and shoot a threesome to get over it.
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



WWW
« Reply #85 on: March 18, 2014, 06:15:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The 1000 frames a day thing is a representation that you as a photographer are spending less time thinking about what you're taking a photograph of (and how it will end up.) I know, I fall into the same basket: with digital it is very easy to activate the shutter 100s or more times a day with little regard to what is produced. Tricky situation encountered? Activate HDR and shoot a threesome to get over it.

In reality the same time is spent either way, either at the time of capture or via post processing. If one is indecisive during the shooting stage I will bet that the time they spend post processing is even longer and one of the allures of digital is that it allows a million post processing iterations. My style of shooting, even with digital 35mm gear is the same disciplined, methodical approach I had when shooting medium and large format film. I think people must trust their instinct more when shooting and not begin to lean towards allowing digital to save their shot. Now it does depend on what you're shooting I suppose but I've never shot anywhere near a 1000 shots a day shooting my subject matter, regardless of where I'm travelling.

Cheers,
Jay
Logged

Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #86 on: March 18, 2014, 08:28:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, perhaps you’d care to step out from behind that piece of soft fruit?

There's something quite wonderful about this ^ expression, but I have to admit I don't know exactly what it means or where it comes from.  Meanwhile, the mildly menacing and taunting tone is obvious and fascinating.  Klaban (or anyone else familiar with the phrase) care to elaborate or explain this to me?
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 18, 2014, 08:51:03 AM »
ReplyReply

There's something quite wonderful about this ^ expression, but I have to admit I don't know exactly what it means or where it comes from.  Meanwhile, the mildly menacing and taunting tone is obvious and fascinating.  Klaban (or anyone else familiar with the phrase) care to elaborate or explain this to me?

Take a look at PhotoEcosse's avatar.
Logged

mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #88 on: March 18, 2014, 09:18:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Take a look at PhotoEcosse's avatar.

Ahhhh...Thank you!  I was kind of hoping for an obscure literary reference, or...something.   Grin
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 18, 2014, 09:40:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I should add that my point was about anonymity and lack of accountability.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2962


« Reply #90 on: March 18, 2014, 11:11:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I should add that my point was about anonymity and lack of accountability.

What a pity you chose that distraction instead of responding to the points that were being discussed.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #91 on: March 18, 2014, 12:32:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Get over it.
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1920



« Reply #92 on: March 18, 2014, 01:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

More personal tit for tat and this thread will be closed.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #93 on: March 18, 2014, 01:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

More personal tit for tat and this thread will be closed.

That would be a blessing.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad