There's no argument that some aspects of digital photography have the capacity to be cheaper than using film. But you could have sold the rights to an image made with film for the same profit level and used the same argument to prove that buying new film gear was worth it.
It still seems, to me, that you either accept poorer image quality or invest a lot of time and resources, not to mention capital, in postprocessing to get the best out of digital photography. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Mike, > > I bought the Panny L1 and an Olympus 11-22 mm lens in mid-May. A week > later I shot a job on spec with them. Last month I closed a licensing > deal on one exposure from that shoot that paid 70% more than the > total cost of the equipment. I've not produced any paper prints at > all, the publishers took the product as a digital file. > > That's certainly a lot cheaper than if I'd been shooting film for > that job. > > (BTW, I shot the job with both the K10D and L1. The particular photo > selected was made with the 11-22 @ 11mm focal length, about the same > FoV as the K10D + DA14. It just chanced that they preferred the > particular framing I captured with the L1 ... I was actually just > testing the L1 and shooting side by side to see if the image quality > was up to snuff for my work. :-) > > Godfrey > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:14 AM, mike wilson wrote: > > >>He eliminated (many of) those in-camera. The point is still that >>3000 files is not the same as 3000 prints or slides. Produce equal >>numbers of the same end product before you tell me that it is cheaper. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
