The time spent processing digital has proved to be a boon for me, at least in regard to magazine work. When I was shooting film I was able to submit an expense report for film and processing. When those funds were reimbursed, they merely replaced money that had been taken out of my pocket. Now I can submit an expense report for digital processing, and that's money in my pocket. I generally charge about what I used to spend on film and processing. Usually about $180 for a one day shoot. I can process the work from a one day shoot in about two hours. Paul
> > Friday, May 6, 2005, 3:31:31 PM, David wrote: > DZ> Yes, but DSLR will pay of its price many times over 10 years > DZ> of service because you don't have to buy film and pay for > DZ> processing. > > If you consider your free time you have to spend adjusting the > photographs, developing them, et cetera... to be of no cost, than yes. > If you can bill it to the client, than yes (but unless you are a big > studio, don't count on it). Otherwise, you now have to spend a lot > more time in front of the computer, and even more time on lists like > these learning the latest methods of using ACR/PS/whatever instead of > paying a flat fee for better quality prints. Not mentioning updating > your computer because the last one was just way too slow. Just many > people forget this, some even enjoy it (myself, occassionaly, with > just few images but not so much with a bigger shoot). I guess in the > end it might break even. Or perhaps not. The point is that there are > more hidden costs to it. > > Good light! > fra >
