> Not questioning your facts but I'm curious what the costs you're
> seeing are? I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that the
> big cost would be film and processing so with that removed I'd expect
> your costs to drop.
Well, if you're frugal....
This is a subject in some professional circles. Your cash outlay is inedde
lowere, but, your time demands are substantially increased. Look at things
this way. When you shoot a wedding, you give the film to some pimply kid,
come back later, give him some money, and you have proofs. Later, in the
worst case, you have to put the negs in cardboard thingies, and take those
to the lab for prints, which, by the way, probably cost less than the cost
of ink and paper for home made prints.
With digital, you're the pimply faced kid. You have to download the files,
fiddle with them, make prints or discs or upload or whatever (I knbow, you
can get them on a website, but I've heard complaints that grandma or whoever
can't see the photos cause she can't use a computer), and after that, you
get to make the prints.
It all depends on how you value your time. Frankly, there are a lot of
wedding and portrait photographers that have plenty of time on their hands,
but if you done, there are a lot of late nights.
A common mistake of enthusiasts and weekend warriors is undervaluing time.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|