>I don't get it. You said you did not make giant >enlargements.
So why are you going toward a more cumbersome >system the main
advantage of which is to make very large >prints. Admittedly
larger film is more
>fun to work with in a darkroom.
I said that I'm not currently printing murals. I do have a
couple of billboards in my past, but that's another story.
16x20 prints are big enough to warrent some attention to detail.
Nearly all of my resale prints are restricted to 11x14 in most
part to film format.
>Are just focussed on the present though? What about 5 years
>from now when no one will be selling 645 film cameras because
>their quality will be exceeded by digital alternatives. I
>think 645 film will go the way of the instamatic cartridge.
You bring up some good points here. It is entirely possible
that 120/220 will get squeezed by digital. We're already seeing
it in wedding/portrait photography where the latest/greatest
digitals are providing perfectly satisfactory results for less
operational costs. Commercial photography has been
transitioning to digital for years now.
However, we're not seeing a mass migration towards digital from
the 120/220 formats. If there were, I think that Pentax,
Contax, Mamiya and Hassleblad would have put a halt on new MF
product development. Last I checked Pentax just upgraded to the
645N-II, Contax introduced zoom lenses for the Contax 645,
Mamiya upgraded their 645AF and Hassleblad is even ponying up to
the table with almost usable products.
>At that point anyone trying to sell their non-digital photos
>will be looked upon as "quaint", retro or just out of touch.
The mere fact that I'm currently shooting at least 75% B&W these
days is evidence that I'm a retro-grouch. What's film got to do
with it? It is true that when color hit its stride that the B&W
professional photographer was left in the dust. But now that
imaging formats move forward there will be a resurgance in prior
formats (B&W). Not unlike automobiles--They're nice when they
are brand new, but unwanted when 5-20 years old, then they
become highly sought after classics.
>And certainly when you consider the cost of a new darkroom a
>digital alternative does not seem that expensive.
I've rerun those numbers over and over and over and over. We're
about two years away from having the technology mature enough to
provide stability in the digital arena. A D30 is yesterday's
garbage. How frequently do I need to upgrade/replace my
computer system? Storage costs?
I can buy into a very nice MF wondertank system using both new
and used equipment for around $5,000. In six years, worse case,
my investment will still be worth at least $2,500. My darkroom
will amortize nicely given a nice cache of equipment already
owned. Point of comparison: The OM is a dead system using a
dead film format (digital is better, isn't it?). Then why is
the prices of my kit at least the price that I bought it for?
If I were to purchase a new digital system today, I can
guarantee that nearly my entire kit will turn over in six years.
That investment (about the same as a MF+Darkroom) will have far
less residual value. Many of my professional photographer
friends are using exactly the same MF equipment when they
started out years ago. There are a ton of RB67s with extremely
low serial numbers that probably still rack out more pictures
per day than all other pro formats combined.
>If you are making an investment for this next period in your
>life I think you are going to need to separate your equipment
>needs for professional use and for your love of working with
>film as an avocation.
Unless the investment happens to match my needs as a
professional photographer. What works for George A. and me
doesn't necessarily work for others--especially full-time
wedding pros.
>What would you tell a young photographer with talent to do if
>he wanted to set the world on fire. Film? I doubt it.
You are absolutely correct. I wouldn't suggest film. Not for
somebody who doesn't currently have an established style or
imbedded investment. If I was 100% wiped out today, I'd
definitely give digital a hard look and not look back.
However, the fact remains that the business economics of digital
are hard to fathom for the part-time or niche market
professional. Frankly the cost of doing business is so high,
that no photographer should plan on replacing systems more than
once in his entire career! Twice tops! Mine has been in use
since 1986, semi-professionally since 1989. I've got to get a
whole new file cabinet just to hold the stuff that I've shot
recently. And I'm only PART-TIME! But, hey, a file cabinet
only costs $50.
The de-facto pro shop here in Iowa is migrating heavily towards
digital. It's hard to get certain supplies here. Is it the
market demands or have they created their own "future"? I think
it is a savvy move considering the repeat business that results
in big-ticket items. Their film prices are so high that few
professionals buy from them, instead giving B&H their business
(me included). Digital camera prices are more uniform right
now, since demand is so high. There is little discount to buy
from B&H instead of the local shop. The owner was lamenting
that he has a used Bronica sitting in the cabinet that's been
there for two years without nary a nibble. He is chalking it up
to poor demand for MF gear--I chalk it up to the fact that it's
nearly $1,000 higher than the going street price.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|