Photgraphic business question

[rob_barker]

This thread started wide of the forum topic and has steadily drifted farther away. Thanks to all who have contributed but please keep it at least vaguely relevant to LF photography or let it die a natural death.

 

Rob (Moderator)

[ellis_vener_photography]

large format quality with with digital capture? realistically you are talking about a $20,

000 to $25,000 investment. It isn't just the digital camera or back, although that isthe

bulk of it. it is also the peripherals; faster computers, better monitors, calibration &

profile tools, printers, storage, software (starting with Adobe Photoshop CS), lenses

that are optimized for digital capture. the good news that once you purchase a 20

Mega-pixel (or larger) back you really are not going to need to upgrade it as rapidly

as someone buying say a Canon EOS 1Ds will.<P>And yes to those doubters who say

even an image made with 20 Megapixel back isn't going to be the same quality or

resolution as a 4x5 piece of fine grain film will capture -- rubbish. I've made the tests

and compared the two. Don't forgetthat once you shoot film it will need to be

scanned. Good scans cost money and time. And film costs time & money too. So does

Polaroid. If you are going to shoot Digital you you need to charge your clients for the

service -- just as you would charge for film, processing & Polaroids (+ markup of

course) where they save money is that they will no longer needto have scans and

separations made. if you get really good and really know your stuff, then yo ueven

proof great CMYK proofs that the printer will have to match. In other words you will

be offering your clients a higher level of service that is worth more money in your

pocket and a great deal of time and money savings to the client on the entire

process.<P>The real question I have for you is: what is that you are planning on

shooting? Architecture? Products? Catalog work? Portraits?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Dave S wrote: <I>"economics 101.. if your finished product is better than the

competiton for less cost to the customer you will do very well."</I><P> I just want to

add (or re-iterate) that cost for a client is not just measured in dollars. Money is

cheaper than time and excellent service and reliability. This is why some

photographers are able to charge high fees andstay in business consistently. It is also

to have a stable of two or three "bread and butter" clients who may not pay as much

as others but who are steady in their needs. They are often more important to your

success than occassional high end clients.<P>John Cook wrote:<I>"I further submit

that attempting to bring commercial photographs into the marketplace of the

Northeastern US Rust Belt is an exercise in futility. There are precious few fat cats

here in New England who are eager to pay large sums of money for colorful, pretty

pictures. "</I><P>it is the pretty pictures of pretty scenes that are easy. it is the

good looking pictures of something that started out looking like a mess that are

difficult to produce that are much more valuable to a client. Fat cats never like to

spend money, that is how the rich stay rich. if 'fat cats' it is sometimes worth more to

hem if you charge a lot more than you think a job is worth it. They understand the

value of money and therefore will either try to get you on the cheap or will pay really

big bucks as the high cost makes them value it more. Fitzgerald was right; "the rich

are different than the rest of us." And Hemingway was right to when he responded:

"yes they have more money.