Bob makes many reasonable points, in terms of the real time costs of
film scanning. It is not a greatly differing argument from that of
whether photographers should "waste" their time in the darkroom have
someone else do it for them.
To some extent the scan produced by the photographer has the same
artistic merit as that of a photographer developed and printed image.
Potential loss of creative control, versus time saving, perhaps even
financial savings.
I suppose a similar argument can be made about each and every functional
photographer has, that isn't directly "taking the picture". Does a
photographer want to take his own appointments, clean his cameras,
organize his film, caption and file his images, do his own lighting,
carry his own equipment, promote his name and advertising, etc., etc.?
What about costuming, make up work, set design, etc. Each of these
things can be done by someone who can be paid "less" or the same as a
top end photographer receives for being at the shoot.
So, what it comes down to, is what is anyone photographer's time worth,
can he/she make more doing something else? And even more importantly,
does the photographer enjoy doing any of these things?
Myself, I like having more control over my final output. I also enjoy
having a day full of varied processes. I don't want to just be a "paid
finger" to push the shutter button.
Its probably true that the top paid photographers have relinquished a
lot of the background of picture taking to other hired professional, but
maybe I'm just a control freak, cause I like my fingers to be in most of
the pies.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear Lalle
>
> Converting to dollar sums for universal simplicity. UK prices for "system
> time" vary between $75 - $125. Apparently New York is slightly cheaper than
> even the UK provinces.
>
> If I get a 120 scanner I will also need a Computer to plug it into, a table
> to put it on and by many accounts a dust free room. This all costs a lot more
> than the price of a scanner. When you count the rent, rates, electricity,
> insurance etc. the setup has an overhead. As a photographer I don't think it
> is logical to design a system where even my theoretical earnings are less
> than a technician at a lab. As a photographer I have the added disadvantage
> that I would not use the scanning setup everyday. Therefore the investment
> would be much less efficient than a bureau charging $75 - $125 using their
> Macs and stuff all the time.
>
> Whenever I've mentioned 50Mb drum scans at $10 on the Stockphoto list I've
> had lots of people ask "where?". If you know cheaper please tell. I did
> mention that they are done on a CGI scanner which is considerably more than
> $2,500. More like a $150,000 investment by the bureau.
>
> (For those who don't know the CGI has a unique evaporating oil and the film
> goes on the inside of the drum. Throughput is much faster than conventional
> drum scanners because there is no taping or oil cleaning.)
>
> What seems to be the killer is the dust problem. The bureaux scans are clean
> which is wonderful. Looking at a full screen image on a monitor is like
> looking out of an open window at the scene.
>
> Yours
>
>
> Bob Croxford
> Cornwall
> England
>
>
