> However if you were shooting 4x5 chromes back in 1999 you would have commercially
> viable image quality now(even with a camera made in the 1970's.) That's assuming
> your subject matter was still relevant. I also had a 4x5 kit with a 210mm and a
> 90mm that cost less than that crappy Nikon, and I really don't like looking at
> those photos...ouch! But the 4x5s are great!
Michael:
I've seen this argument before and it always seems to offered by people who never
dealt with the cost of film and processing. If I got film and processing for free,
I'd be dissapointed with digital too.
Since I was shooting quite a bit of 4x5 in 1999, I took a look at my expenses that
year. What I found was that I spent enough on film and processing to buy ten or
twelve pro-level dslr's that year. In addition, I spent several thousand dollars and
at least three hours a day going to the lab. I won't burden the list with what I
spent on coffee doughnuts, beer, and sodas during those trips.
In 2002, I bought a second-hand scanning back and used it to make many stock images
that are still on file and selling today. From the first image, my costs dropped
sharply and my control of the process expanded.
Since then, photography costs have dropped even more sharply. Even if I bought a new
pro-dslr every six months (which I would never do), I'd still be way ahead of film.
> Perhaps photography is at a crossroads?
Between 2000 and 2004, photography WAS at a crossroads. We're long past it. A whole
new group of people are thriving.
If you were getting film and processing for free, you have lost something profound.
Otherwise, I ask you to reconsider using all the expenses you incurred while you
were shooting with that 4x5. In my case, it really added up.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment