--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Yarvin" <brian@...> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
All good points. But I think fewer people in the general stock biz are thriving. As for costs...that's all true. The cost of film and processing adds up. If you made it big with digital photos a decade ago, then good for you. If you were shooting stock with a Nikon d100 for example, I think those images are pretty useless unless you have some shots of a very special subject. Regrettably I wasn't making big money with digital or film back then. But I wince at the technical quality of old digital images. However some 35mm, most medium format, and all large format still holds up favorably. If you did have a library of great film photos from back then you could still use them. I only hold some of the older digital photos for personal reasons.
I don't say this in the sense that I hate technology or digital photography. In fact one of my niches is a library of Silicon Valley tech companies (admittedly rather boring.) I find alot of the arguments that compelled photographers to convert to digital were just self serving marketing by retailers and manufacturers. Worth noting the only thing I use my large format cameras for now is personal black and white work I process at San Francisco's Harvey Milk Photo Center. Like everybody else I've got a Canon 5d, 5dmkII, and a Nikon d300. I still mount 40 year old lenses on them though ;-)
--
Michael Halberstadt
1070 Marina Village Pkwy
Suite 204, Alameda, CA
telephone 415.742.1201
siliconvalleystock.photoshelter.com
halberst.zenfolio.com
siliconvalleystock.com
halberst@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment