> I think a lot of the discussion about "digital savings"
> depends on the type of work you do as a pro. If your costs
> are mainly film and processing then digital can save you a
> lot of money (depending on the volume of shooting you do).
You are absolutely correct. There are many reasons why digital
is superior to film for *MOST* professionals. But cost savings
is not always one of those.
For example:
1. Commercial Photographer: Film costs are passed on to the
client anyway--no hard cost savings for the photographer, just
time and workflow improvements. Digital is necessary for
growing the business or even staying viable, but yields no cost
savings. A digital investment on top of the studio investment
makes this a tenious business.
2. News/Sports Photographer: Film isn't a viable solution
anymore due to time constraints and means of delivery (ftp,
email). Cost savings are great because of the extremely high
waste rate of shooting.
3. Wildlife Photographer: Cost savings in lenses due to the
crop factor of APS sized sensors. Just like the News/Sports
Photographer, the cost savings are great because of the
extremely high waste rate of shooting.
4. Nature Photographer: Zero cost savings. Cost of equipment
far outweighs any potential savings in anything. Volume is way
too low.
5. Portrait Photographer: Little if any cost savings. The
average portrait photographer doesn't shoot enough film per job
to really swing the cost savings. Convenience and turn-around
are about the only real advantages--especially if touch-ups are
required.
6. Wedding/Event Photographer: Plenty of cost savings from film
and a terrific improvement in workflow. This is ONLY viable,
though, if you keep your equipment investments under control
and/or are able to utilize the same equipment/computers for
other projects. The average wedding/portrait photographer will
not see any savings in the conversion to digital--in fact,
his/her expenses will usually be higher.
7. Stock Photographer: Absolutely, digital is the way to go. I
have over $30,000 in film/processing costs invested into my
stock image library. Since starting the transition to digital
16 months ago, I've spent about $500 in film/processing and
$2500 in new cameras and increased my total usable image count
by 35%. For the average stock photographer, the ROI is under
the benchmark 18 months.
There are many ways to make digital work for you and save money.
I've been doing a hybrid approach for a year now where I use the
digital camera to shoot and compose with and "test theories".
Basically, high-end proofing. Then when I know I've got a
"winner" I pull out the film camera, be it 35mm (Velvia, or B&W)
or the 4x5 (B&W). Usually I end up with one very nice photo per
outing anyway, but it takes me 100 to get it. With digital, I do
all 100 with the DC, and only the one with film.
Because I've been able to keep my digital investment under
control I've been able to make money with it. The payback has
been very good for me. However, at my current photographic
income level, I can't exceed $1500 per year in total equipment
costs. That is my personal threshold and accounts for business
operational costs, taxes and a satisfactory household monetary
supplement. So, for me, as much as I'd like the 50-200 lens,
that plus some memory cards will eat up my annual budget. Now,
if I don't mind buying something out of my "toy budget", that's
another story.
Equipment leasing is starting to look like a viable option.
AG
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|