drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

The cost is much less when you freelance like I do. The studio I shoot for pays well. At one time when I was younger before I shot over 1500 weddings and many, I mean many sporting events I shot for about 5 studios at the same time. If you are real good the studios let you do that but most, especially these days, think you are giving away their secrets. I mean what secrets are there when you can outshoot the owner. (Just never tell the owner you know you can.) They think they are the best usually;). The studio I shoot for now had not used my services for over 30 years. All I did was call the owner I knew years ago and he put me to work. I say be good at what you do and leave a great lasting impression and if your boss is just 30 years younger make them happy by doing the best you can on every shoot.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Hi, Ron.

If you buy a camera kit, it doesn't stop there. You need a computer, software, network connection and monthly fees, cloud storage site fees, web site hosting fees, monitor calibrator, photo printer if you print your own, etc.

You need SIGNIFICANT training to get the most from digital software and hardware. The principles of photography are the same, but the tools are different. And the workflow many relied upon labs to achieve now falls on photographers.

Commercially, for some applications, digital IS less costly, at least on the surface.

Where I worked, in the school portrait lab, we laid off hundreds of folks over the decade it took to switch over. These were film inspectors, film editors, printer operators, processor operators, trimmer operators, packers, spotters, staging people... Many had been there for 40 years.

There is certainly much less lab labor in the digital workflow. We pushed most of that labor onto our photographers in the field when we switched! They became responsible for job order entry, subject order entry, cropping, pose editing, and a LOT more. They had to be computer operators in addition to customer service pros and portrait photographers. Many quit or retired, and a couple went criminally insane. Our field teams became much younger, better educated, and more female.

Shutting down film processing (two cine processors for long roll films, a roller transport for 120/220, a dip and dunk for sheet films, and another roll film processor for black-and-white, PLUS associated chem mix facilities) saved over $200,000 a year in labor, before we got to the chemicals. But the clean-up to meet EPA standards was very costly.

We were able to consolidate separate functions into one operation — printing, processing, trimming, spotting, packing, and most staging were replaced by... digital printing. We used software to automate workflow that was entirely manual in the film/optical printing days.

HOWEVER, we still didn't make the margins our parent company needed us to make, so they sold our division. The cost of capital was ENORMOUS, and the payoff didn't happen. With the advent of digital imaging, social media Internet sites, mobile devices, and computers, parents stopped buying school portraits. Our market shrank. A certain big company in the industry bought us, along with many other similarly-sized and smaller companies. At some point, they will have no one else to buy, or the government will step in and say, "No." At that point, they will shrink, because their costs will exceed their income.

So the answer really is, as in all of photography, "It depends on the context."

Kuzano

Standing upright, naked, and no mirror in the room?

elwynn Loc: Near Atlanta, GA

What I don't know won't hurt me.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

I can certainly understand how this accounting makes sense if you earn your living as a photographer. For the rest of us, it's at best, an intellectual exercise. Now that the money has been spent and you have thoroughly enjoyed the hobby, does the cost per image or year or any other factor impact your life? Does it matter? Would you do the same calculation for cars, dinning out, X-Mas gifts purchased for 60 years, ...
Perhaps it is just me, but I have more interesting projects to occupy my time. Besides, I stopped smoking 50 years ago. Let's see: average cost of a pack a day x 50 x 365 ???? LOL
No offense Rongnongno!
Mark

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

This I know is true. I was once retired but came out of retirement to earn money to buy new digital photo gear because I disliked the 12 megapixel camera my daughter gave me for Christmas one year. Then, the other daughter upped the ante and sold me her Nikon because she needed rent money. I got a taste of photography again and I was off to buy more gear like in the old days and when I asked myself how can I a retired man afford it? The answer became go to work taking again.
When I retired I saw so many of the local labs that I cherished the works of fall and go out of business. Only one in the area still exists and that was the largest one. I have to assume it had the funds to survive. I currently see only a few of the studios I used to shoot for still here and I know they suffered from the change. I called one of the wedding guys I shot for up and he said they shot Canon and that he had no idea of what my Nikon format was. Since I knew him, I already knew his skills for computer were stretched just going digital. I really did not have the heart to tell him it was the same as his Canon just slightly different. As for my skills with computer, I knew this was coming. I spent over ten years as an electronics engineering grade techie. I still own put on any computer version of Photoshop and am well versed in Audio/Video such as Avid and Pro-tools. I can build my own computer but those fallen when digital took over are examples of modern technology making them obsolete. I am sad knowing this fact. Just glad I did not become obsolete.
So now I work to buy more gear to pursue a dream of art photographer. I read somewhere where one woman was making large prints from digital and then destroying all digital copies of the shot to make the print a one of a kind item. I wonder if I should do that too.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I don't really know how anybody would figure this, as far as I'm concerned, if not using film, I can go out all day and shoot all day (wow a whole day of fun) and it really cost me nothing (but time). So, to me it's free and I loving it!!

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

Bykewrydr Loc: Alberta

YUP... and for the guy who goes fishing , better not try to figure out the price per pound!

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

It does not cost me anything, it gives to me. It gives me a reason to get out and travel, hike, and explore. It challenges my mind and body, and at my age, that is priceless in the returns I receive by the hobby I have chosen. If everything was about dollars and cents, we would be a very boring human race, just my opinion.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

That is one image I never want to see posted!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

As a matter of course....

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are correct in this.

In the case you describe the problem is not the cost per say but the ever shrinking market as well as the new investment. A miscalculation is at fault more than the cost itself.

As for small outfits... They do not have this problem as they likely stole your clients!!!

Still if you objectively compare the cost per photographer the digital age is really cheap but, there is a huge cost that is never taken (or rarely)... Quality.

I want to a seminar near Mystic 30+ years ago to be trained by a large company (hallmark? Not sure) to shoot high school kids. Despite the pre-screening only about 60% of the trainee passed the 'final' in quality. I ended up turning the job down as the margin for us (photographers) was way too low to make it worthwhile, something that was hidden until the lat minute. I do not regret the week long training as I learned quite a bit.

Dusty

Who really cares what it cost. Everything costs something.

Dusty

Who really cares what it cost. Everything costs something.