Brian,
in December I finished shooting the last of my large stock of slide film and used up my prepaid slide processing mailers all of which were bought at "low" prices by todays standard. I used my Canon F1 cameras which i used during my days working at a newspaper and freelance photojournalst days.
Much of the work I have been scanning (Minolta 5400 dpi) has been from my huge files of B&W and slide images going back to the 60s. These can be profitable because the shooting cost was covered a long time ago. Nature subjects rarely become dated unless they go extinct and may sell many years after they were shot, some dated material can be of interest for "historical" usage.
ie; images of Harvey Milk from the late 70s have been selling well, with a number of images selling over and over.
Prices for digital cameras have come way down and the quality of the images has increased a great deal.
I have "tons" of images I want to scan and get out their for sale and in the meantime im currently looking at digi cameras but consider it a captial investment so want to minimize cost.
any digi "point and shoot" and or DSLR recomendations?
Also considering using my past education in film and later video production and dabbling in video stock footage, to add to the little income from video documentary editing i do on occasion.
guess im kind of a dinosaur attempting to sloooowly adapt to change and not become extinct.
Robert Clay
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Yarvin" <brian@...> wrote:
>
> > I have been selling stock since the mid 70s, directly and via 2 agencies I was
> > with at the time (Jeroboam and Contact Press Images). I am pretty slow at making
> > changes. All my digitized images are from scans of slides and negatives. I have
> > been shooting film (negative then slide) from the late 60s thru December 2010 and
> > do not yet own a digital camera that I have shot stock with.
>
> Bob:
>
> Wow...this in itself brings up a big question; if you're buying and processing film at today's
> prices, you must be racking up astronomical costs. Add to this the time it takes to make
> quality scans and I have to ask "just how practical is this?"
>
> Back in 1998, it cost me about six dollars in film and processing to get one image in an
> agency file - it added up to equivalent of several new cars a year. So today, that number
> would have to be at least double - at least.
>
> So how do you do it?
>
>
>
> Brian Yarvin
> Author, Educator, Photographer
> http://www.brianyarvin.com
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment