This is very much the logic expressed by my former manager (Kevin).
He didn't get seriously involved with photography until about four
years ago. His brother-in-law (Tom) had built up a very successful
part-time business shooting weddings and portraits (on film) and
needed a partner who was digi-savvy. Kevin was messing about with a
cheap digi-P&S to make pix of his baby and got drafted. Kevin learned
photography from Tom, learned Photoshop from everywhere and last I
checked the two of them were so successful that they raised their
prices significantly so they wouldn't have to turn so many clients
away. Last season one paid them to shoot a wedding on Mackinac Island
over a three day weekend.
Kevin will tell anyone that his rapid progress as a photographer is
directly attributable to the instant feedback digital provides.
Makes sense to me. We used to use Polaroids in classes so people
could see results quickly and 'get' the lesson immediately.
ScottGee1
On 10/12/06, John Gettis <jgettis81@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I believe that the ease of taking lots of photos without a visible cost is
> a two edged sword. One one hand it does promote taking lots of lousy
> photographs that are never printed. On the other it gives us the ability
> to take photos see the result and learn what we did wrong and correct it in
> a timely manner. We can also experiment more now that we are not bound by
> the cost of buying and processing film. And yes it would probably be
> cheaper to shoot film if you have to factor in the cost of the computer
> digital camera and assorted accessories but once they have been bought you
> no longer think about that. I know that when I shot more photos I was much
> better both at seeing the photograph and capturing it then I am now. But
> now that I have started using the E-500 I find myself improving. John
> Gettis
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|