stephen f

Julie, to further what Art, David, and Keith stated, it is a very competitive market, and in the end for most photographers, you spend more time running the business than you do taking images. To figure your cost of business, you end up using 2 days for photography, and 3 days for admin, marketing, networking, etc.

 

To make matters worse, the areas you show the most interest in are over saturated. Unless you really hustle, are a good salesperson, and a born networker, the jobs will be harder to come by. And when they do come, they also pay the lowest rate compared to editorial, advertising, or commercial work. Your competition will also be all the newcomers to photography trying to just cover some of their equipment costs for their hobby. That means depressed pricing since they have no overhead, no salary, no insurance, etc, and can charge rock bottom prices. Its not a pretty market.

 

On the other hand, if you specialize in some form or editorial, commercial, or advertising, and market yourself well, you can actually still make a living at it. If you skills are comparable with the segment of the market you are going after, you will be able to charge enough to cover your expenses, overhead, take home a decent salary, and still turn a profit. But again, you are spending most of your time running a business, and less time actually taking images.

 

I hope I am not being too harsh, but reality is what it is. I see people spending money buying all sorts of equipment, printing up business cards and web sites, then heading head first into the most competitive end of the market. A year later, they are selling off equipment, lowering prices to compete (further severing the head they are trying to keep afloat), then finally going out of business.

 

If you want to succeed, pick a niche, do it far better then the other guys, charge a healthy fee that you can live on, and target your marketing toward that niche. Get out and network, show your portfolio, hit the agencies and design firms, and get involved in any organizations that will give you exposure to the right people.

And a lot more has changed in the last 3 years as well. Its funny to read back through this thread now.

 

Wonder what the next 5 years will bring.

Thanks everyone. I'll order a few today!

I grabbed a used D2 enlarger for a great price. It does need a lamp,

otherwise I think everything is there and works. I have a manual on

order, which may or may not tell me what lamp to use. Does anyone know

what lamp I should purchase, and what source?

The answer was touched upon by many in this thread. Because so many people shoot for fun, they are more than willing to give away some prints in exchange for access to subjects, or charge just enough to cover the costs, and maybe buy a new lens every now and then. That has cheapened photography as a whole to the masses.

 

One way to avoid some of this, is not to shoot for retail clients. Instead, set your sights on corporate, industrial, product, advertising, etc. They tend to value time, expertise, artistic abilities, and professionalism much higher than someone getting a portrait done. The portrait customer has probably had some really nice photos given to them of their family or fiends by other amateur photographer friends, but rarely does a corporation get a free set of publicity photos of their products for less than the going rate. Their value base is quite different.

 

However, if you are going to run the corporate race, you to be able to deliver the goods. That right there eliminates quite a bit of your competition from the amateurs, and helps beek pricing at a more reasonable level. Further, the entry price is also a bit steeper, which also eliminates even more.

 

As someone said, lots of people shoot photos for fun then give them away, but rarely does anyone fix someones brakes for free. Likewise, lots of people shoot portraits and special events for fun, but rarely do they shoot product shots or corporate portraits and give them away for free. The perceived value is thus much higher, and you can actually charge a decent price for your work. :)

>>>How archival ANY CD will be when the drives get replaced by technology? Think about where you'd be today with perfect 5 1/4" floppy disks from ten-fifteen years ago.

 

No different that the data this sitting on my CD-ROMS that originated on mag tape and 8" floppies from 20 years ago. Its safe, happy, and 100% intact. Migration strategy is the key. When new technology surpasses CD-ROMS, I'll send out my CD's and have the files moved to the new technology, just like I did with 5-1/4 floppies, zip drives, and my early CD's. Or if I feel so inclined and want to save a few bucks, I'll do it myself prior to retiring my older PC for the newest hot rod.

 

I think the basic question arises from how good are the CD's now, and will they last long enough and be reliable while we wait for the next technological advance to move our files to. My guess, based on a conserative 20 year wait, is yes. However, I haven't had any data last more than say 5-7 years on any media before it was moved. I'm getting ready to move stuff to DVD now, and I don't expect to see it sit on DVD for more than 5-7 years either.

 

My migration strategy? I make 2 backups of each CD which contain the original images, my business and personal data,or whatever I am archiving. I also keep some test CD's (usually ones I duplciated by mistake, didn't need, etc) which are dated and left out on my workarea in a more hostile environment as a test case., On my internal hard disk, I have a directory of the most important images, which are backed up to an external 200GB drive daily (in a fire, thats the disk I'll grab :). The 2nd CD copy of my backups are stored at my mothers house. Basically, four exact duplciates (2 on hard disk, 2 on CD) of the most important stuff, and duplciate CD-ROMS for my less important stuff.

 

When something new comes along, my 5-7 year time limit, or one of my test CD's which I check every so often act up, I'll move all the first level stuff off hard disk to the new media, and send out the second level CDs for duplication.

 

I still have 5-1/4 floppies, and still have an old PC that I can read them on if need be.And I'll be damned if they still don't read perfectly! You can even find a mag tape reader if you really want to. Lots of computer hobbists around, and they love to work with that old stuff. They can get it transfered for you, and they migth even make a buck or two in the process to keep the equipment running for the next fool that didn't have a migration strategy!

 

In the end, the technology isn't going away without a reasonable solution, and or lots of advance warning to find alternatives. One day we are not going to wake up and find all the digital images everybody has taken are gone because we can't read the file formats, can't move it to new media because CD's are no longer hot. The industry will take care of that. Newsweek, magazines, corporate, stock photo houses, et alia., will make sure there is a solution. Their images are worth billions, and no one lets that kind of value float away. Use the file formats the industry uses. Create a archive strategy. Keep duplciates of the data. Revist your archical decisions every couple years and revise as necessary for the future. And your digital will be far more safe than the negatives sitting in your mothers attic collecting dust and fading away. In fact, go get those negatives, scan and convert them, and you will preserve those images long past the time the film base turns clear.

Harsh crowd!!!

 

Gregory seems to have nailed the answer for you. It sounds as if you are looking to set an exposure compensation value for the ambient exposure, as well as setting a flash compensation for the fill flash. While you can do this manually as Gregory mentions, it is adventageous at times to use one of the program exposure modes while still being able to compensate the two separately, such as situations where you need to frame and reframe quickly. I know I can split the compensation values on my F5, and I believe also on my S2. However, I am not sure the D70 has that capability.

 

In that case, manual would be the only way to get the same results.

He may or may not do a lot of scans. However, I do. I have used most of the scanners at twice the price from other manufacturers. Minolta has a very nice scanner in the Dual III, that is very very close to those costing twice the price, with little tradeoffs.