Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:06:40 -0800 (PST), Bob quoth unto the boundless Ether... >For the pro, digital lowers cost and increase profit, since you can >still charge the client the same fee as you did during the film >years. I actually charge more for digital than I did for film. This is because for most pros, digital takes us FAR longer to deal with post production than film did. Consider, I work on my average wedding 15-20 hours in PS.CS to get ~300 or so images ready for public consumption. I then take the CDR or DVD to the lab and I also upload the job to DigiProofs.com for hosting. When the prints come back I put them into an album for the clients with the CDR. If I'm hired also to design a fine art collage album (like this: http://wwwGoodPhotos.com/FAalbum/ ) I have to put in at least 3 more days of work in PS.CS to design and order the album(s). When I shot film, on the other hand, I'd take the film to the lab and pick up prints a week later and place them in an album with the negatives and I was done. All the post production was done by my lab. 2/3 of the process of photography was out of my hands. I agree that in the long run, shooting digitally may be more profitable, probably, but it is far more time consuming and the main reason that I prefer it is that I now have complete control of the other 2/3 of the photographic process that I had given up when I could no longer afford the time to soup my own negs and print my own prints. Carpe Luminem, Michael Eric Berube GoodPhotos.com AnotherMaine.com