[Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost

[locke at straylight.ca (Greg Locke)]

It's not about the cost of film but time.  ...and I'm talking about working
pros here who do this day in and day out for a living.

With film we dropped it at the lab and someone else did the
"post-production" work. It didn't take hours of our time to process chrome.

Now photographers are the "processors" putting in a more than a couple of
hours (for big shoots) on post-production.
... Or they have someone hiring inhouse to do it.

Downloading hundreds of images from cameras and cards (I'm shooting 300-500
pictures a day for 10 days at Sound Symposium), editing, RAW conversions,
preparing files for client use, burning CD's or uploading to clients.

For me it is roughly an hour of post production for an hour of shooting. 
This means am now charging 2 hours for a 1 hour shoot. 1 hour to shoot and 1
hour to "process".

We are moving to the film/video production model where you charge for your
shoot (camera and person) and your editing suite. (hopefully we can get to a
point, like the video crews, where they also charge for camera rental.)

...YET!  some clients now expect your bill to be lower because there is no
film and processing cost. They don't seem to get it that the job is not over
when the shutter snaps.

Sometimes I break it down into "production" or creative time and
"post-production" or editing time.
..and sometimes I just bill it all straight through from start to finish
regardless of the actual chore being done.



Greg Locke
St. John's, Newfoundland

      --- SOUND SYMPOSIUM XII --
International Festival of New Music and Art 
Daily photo coverage at 
http://blog.greglocke.com
July 8 - 18, 2004
St. John's, Newfoundland