Still Photography

[Shootblue]

Been contemplating doing some part time still photo work. I dont need so much of gear reccomendations (working with a 20D and L series lenses) as I do a good idea of whether I can make back my expenses for a quality setup and quality work over a couple years. Obviously this is based on a lot of things, such as marketing and amount of time put forth...but what is your take on it, preferably from personal experiences such as self financing your own photo business...

 

[Buck]

You got a 20D? Damn you! That is high on my wish list. For now I'll stick with my 300D...I love it, but want more.

I'd love to do something similar on the side. I just don't know when I could find the time. I heard one idea that might work. I've heard of guys who will shoot kids soccer games and such and will sell the photos to parents. Some will even print the pics out right there. Others set up a web site with the proofs on there and hand out a business card.

 

[<Joey23>]

Hey Shoot,

I think it's a great thing to get into and it's a great thing to do on the side to make extra money. It's expensive to get into, but worth it because you eventually can make that back.

I just spent $1,000 on some new backdrops and a lighting kit and have the Canon Digital Rebel with a lot of extra's with it.

Awesome that you're working with the 20D, a guy I work with just bought the 20D from Wolf's Camera in Topeka and he's pretty excited about it.

- Joey

 

[Buck]

Joey,

What extras do you have with your DR? Like I said, that's what I have. My brother just gave me a 28-105mm lens that I enjoy using.

 

[WV24fpspro]

For financing a digital still setup consider the following cost factors:

Above average digital camera body- at least 1k.

Two above average lens and a somewhat below average one flash "kit"- another 1k.

Below average computer hardware- 2k.

Barely above average software for the above posted business- 1k.

Two or three below average printers- 1k minimum.

If you're going to be starting a still photography business, digitial is NOT the way to go. All of the expenses will depreciate significantly in the first year. You'll be stuck constantly upgrading all of the hardware just to attempt to keep up.

Also consider that for the amount of money spent you could have gotten one killer system such as a Mamiya or even a Hasselblad. If electing to go with the Hasselblad- that's the type of system which lasts forever and tends to hold its value quite well.

My first medium format film camera was a Hasselblad 2000 FC. To this day it still runs perfectly- even after well over 100k pictures have been through the film back. More recently I've gotten a H1d, but at well over 20k I don't look for it to pay for itself anytime soon.

 

[<Joey23>]

Originally posted by Buck:
Joey,

What extras do you have with your DR? Like I said, that's what I have. My brother just gave me a 28-105mm lens that I enjoy using.

Buck,

The DR rocks! Though I would like to play with the D20, maybe someday. The accessories I have includes:

1). A sigma 70-300MM lens that came with a lens hood.
2). I recently got the 420EX Speedlight light.
3). I have the Canon RS60 remote.
4). I have a total of 4 batteries.
5). I have 3 different filters, one is just a filter to protect the lens and then I have my Polarizer and my UV Haze Filter.
6). I also bought the CB Junior custome bracket from B&H photo along with the canon off-camera shoe cord.

I also have a regular clear filter for my lens, then have a Polarizer and UH Haze filter.

I would like to get a wide angle lense for mine, any suggestions on a good one?

Joey

 

[<DigitalPhoto>]

ShootBlue,

If you want to make some good money with your camera - but not hassle with the details of running a photography studio -- check out www.playerphotos.com

I mostly shoot high school sports and can make $100-$200 per game. The best was $600. Not bad for a couple hours of work on my schedule. I just shoot, upload, and wait for my check at the end of the month. The company does all the rest.

see this link for more info -
http://www.playerphotos.com/INFO/

 

[<steede>]

WV24,

I'm with you in being a proponent of film. That said, I'm just a photo hobbyist, and have been mulling the move to a DSLR. I love my Nikon FM-2, with it's assortment of prime lenses, a medium zoom, Vivitar flash, filters...etc. I'm a big fan of 35MM slides. I have an old school Kodak Ektagraph slide projector with a fastfold screen in my basement for slideshows. My favorite films are Fuji Provia and Velvia, but at $5 a roll and at least $6 to process each roll digital is looking better and better, especially when my local lab got rid of E-6 processing a year ago. I've heard great things mentioned about the Canon 20D, Digi Rebel, Nikon D70, but these are all prosumer DSLRs. Don't get me wrong they're great cameras, but to those above thinking about making money with a still camera, particularly a DSLR I would look at some better camera bodies.

 

[<DigitalPhoto>]

I should have mentioned that I have a Nikon D1X and a Nikon D1H. Both are excellent cameras, but really overkill for what I'm doing. My wife has a D70 and I used it a couple of times to "test" it out at some football games and it was excellent. I highly recommend it for sports or anything else. Don't be fooled into thinking you've got to spend $3000+ on a pro body. The D70 doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it shoots great images and is fast.

 

[<Joey23>]

Originally posted by <DigitalPhoto>:
ShootBlue,

If you want to make some good money with your camera - but not hassle with the details of running a photography studio -- check out www.playerphotos.com

I mostly shoot high school sports and can make $100-$200 per game. The best was $600. Not bad for a couple hours of work on my schedule. I just shoot, upload, and wait for my check at the end of the month. The company does all the rest.

see this link for more info -
http://www.playerphotos.com/INFO/

The prices seem to be a bit extreme, I do all my printouts through Millers via www.mpix.com. Just sign up for an account, it's free, then you can upload your pictures, choose teh size you want printed and that's it.

For an 8x10 from mpix.com it is 1.99 and the quality is fantastic, many photographers uses mpix.com to do prints.

 

[WV24fpspro]

Please note that four out of ten of the best still photographs taken were done so by ametuer cameras by people who have little or no experience with cameras. So the general statement that one doesn't need to spend 3k on a camera body is somewhat accurate, but...

Also consider that if ones going to consider purchasing a digital camera which presently retails at about 1k, that about one year from now (if it's still being sold) that it will then retail at about half that much.

Please also note that there is a considerable amount of difference between any prosumer camera and the real professional ones. Just for use as an example one really can't compare a Nikon D100 to a D2X, or a Canon digital rebel to a EOS-1 DS Mark II. It's a lot more than bells and whistles to have a prosumer camera fail from wearing out during a professional assignment. Any prosumer camera just is not built to take the daily abuse of a real professional camera body.

If I were to start over again as a professional, I'd still want to go the film route. At least the film camera won't need updating every year or so. One also has to consider that even the top end digital cameras at 16.6mp are on about the same image quality of a regular 200 speed print under very ideal lighting.

Digital still has a long way to go to match even a 35mm 100 speed print, not alone a 64 or even a 25 speed print. Then there's also the point that the higher end models such as the Canon EOS-1 DS Mark II has a bit of a size and weight issue. I've run many a medium format camera which is actually smaller.

 

[Shootblue]

The 20d has gotten good reviews on many websites. I've looked. I am aware of the depreciation issue. I've got a G1 now, and I paid 700 or so new four years ago. Still works, albeit with a couple dead pixels. Photoshop those right out. I'd say that the price to use factor is pretty good for that camera. I am sure that the build quality is good on the 20D. I cant afford to learn using film. I know that it is still slightly superior to digital, but I can deal with that.

Judging by the resale value of L series lenses on ebay, I wont lose much unless I trash the lenses. I am buying the camera under the assumption that thatis what I will be using for four or five years. If I can get something better, I will. Though not ideal, I can use my tungsten fixtures instead of flash for the time being. The MPIX thing or another local printer is what I would use for printing what I need to print.

I guess what I am saying is that sure I'd like a Digi-beta, but sometimes you have to make the DVCam work...

Now back to the issue of could one make their money back in a couple years...anyone have insight through their own freelance work in still?

 

[<DigitalPhoto>]

The prices seem to be a bit extreme, I do all my printouts through Millers via www.mpix.com. Just sign up for an account, it's free, then you can upload your pictures, choose teh size you want printed and that's it. For an 8x10 from mpix.com it is 1.99 and the quality is fantastic, many photographers uses mpix.com to do prints.

That might be true, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Your talking about something else entirely.

Will mpix provide the website for customers to see the photos? Help advertise the event? Provide the shopping cart system? Credit card processing? Invoicing? Packaging? Shipping? Customer service when necessary? No, they won't do that. There a lots of places you can get good quality prints made, but PlayerPhotos does all the stuff I don't want to do. I just shoot and upload. You can't get that kind of simplicity with mpix. I'm making $500 -$1000 a month for a few hours work (and fun) and basically all I do is shoot.

Also consider that if ones going to consider purchasing a digital camera which presently retails at about 1k, that about one year from now (if it's still being sold) that it will then retail at about half that much.

So what's the big deal? In one year my 1-3K camera will have earned me 10-15k on the weekends and it will still be running fine. My D1X is three years old and has never been serviced. It's got many years to go before it's dead.

You could make the same argument about computers, televsions, PDA's, and almost any electronics. Everything digital is dropping in price. There are those folks that just keep waiting and waiting for better or cheaper stuff -- and then there are those folks that buy what's available and earn money with it NOW. While you're waiting, I'm earning and having a good time doing it.

Just because digital camera's are getting better and cheaper doesn't mean that I have to buy every next generation of camera. Nikon is about to release the D2X and I feel no urgent need to buy one. Why should I? My D1X and D1H will continue earning me $500-$1000 per month regardless of what the "newest", "greatest" camera is. It doesn't matter. It's a tool.

My Betacam is SIX!! years old and still working 15-18 shoots a month? Do you know how much money that is per year? Maybe I shouldn't have bought it back in 1999 because I heard that HDTV was just around the corner. I wish I had waited.

 

[<DigitalPhoto>]

Sorry about the garbled post above.

The prices seem to be a bit extreme, I do all my printouts through Millers via www.mpix.com. Just sign up for an account, it's free, then you can upload your pictures, choose teh size you want printed and that's it. For an 8x10 from mpix.com it is 1.99 and the quality is fantastic, many photographers uses mpix.com to do prints.

That might be true, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Your talking about something else entirely.

Will mpix provide the website for customers to see the photos? Help advertise the event? Provide the shopping cart system? Credit card processing? Invoicing? Packaging? Shipping? Customer service when necessary? No, they won't do that. There a lots of places you can get good quality prints made, but PlayerPhotos does all the stuff I don't want to do. I just shoot and upload. You can't get that kind of simplicity with mpix. I'm making $500 -$1000 a month for a few hours work (and fun) and basically all I do is shoot.

Also consider that if ones going to consider purchasing a digital camera which presently retails at about 1k, that about one year from now (if it's still being sold) that it will then retail at about half that much.

So what's the big deal? In one year my 1-3K camera will have earned me 10-15k on the weekends and it will still be running fine. My D1X is three years old and has never been serviced. It's got many years to go before it's dead.

You could make the same argument about computers, televsions, PDA's, and almost any electronics. Everything digital is dropping in price. There are those folks that just keep waiting and waiting for better or cheaper stuff -- and then there are those folks that buy what's available and earn money with it NOW. While you're waiting, I'm earning and having a good time doing it.

Just because digital camera's are getting better and cheaper doesn't mean that I have to buy every next generation of camera. Nikon is about to release the D2X and I feel no urgent need to buy one. Why should I? My D1X and D1H will continue earning me $500-$1000 per month regardless of what the "newest", "greatest" camera is. It doesn't matter. It's a tool.

My Betacam is SIX!! years old and still working 15-18 shoots a month? Do you know how much money that is per year? Maybe I shouldn't have bought it back in 1999 because I heard that HDTV was just around the corner. I wish I had waited.

 

[<huh?>]

WV24fpspro says:
"Please note that four out of ten of the best still photographs taken were done so by amateur cameras by people who have little or no experience with cameras."

what the hell is this in reference to?
whatever top ten photo of all time list you are looking at is at best subjective, and at worst ignorant. i know all the photos i enjoy were taken by rather competent artists.

 

[Videodoc]

Sorry WV24 - but I feel the need to pick on you.

Originally posted by WV24fpspro:
Please note that four out of ten of the best still photographs taken were done so by ametuer cameras by people who have little or no experience with cameras. So the general statement that one doesn't need to spend 3k on a camera body is somewhat accurate, but...

Eh? What does that mean - and if anything, based on what?

"Also consider that if ones going to consider purchasing a digital camera which presently retails at about 1k, that about one year from now (if it's still being sold) that it will then retail at about half that much."[/QUOTE]

1/3 maybe. Rebel is a year old and 1/3 price. The higher end stuff holds price a bit better. New models always come out cheaper.

"Please also note that there is a considerable amount of difference between any prosumer camera and the real professional ones. Just for use as an example one really can't compare a Nikon D100 to a D2X, or a Canon digital rebel to a EOS-1 DS Mark II. It's a lot more than bells and whistles to have a prosumer camera fail from wearing out during a professional assignment. Any prosumer camera just is not built to take the daily abuse of a real professional camera body."[/QUOTE]

I know several newspaper guys who use d100 everyday - and have for the last year and half - with little problems. Its all on how you use the equipment.

"One also has to consider that even the top end digital cameras at 16.6mp are on about the same image quality of a regular 200 speed print under very ideal lighting. Digital still has a long way to go to match even a 35mm 100 speed print, not alone a 64 or even a 25 speed print."[/QUOTE]

Wow, that's way off. And again, based on what? I'll put the 20D against any Nikon with any 200 speed film - I'll even let you have 100 Velvia.

Then there's also the point that the higher end models such as the Canon EOS-1 DS Mark II has a bit of a size and weight issue. I've run many a medium format camera which is actually smaller. [/QUOTE]True, I'll give you that one.
I'm sorry, but your information in this post and a few previous ones seems more emotional based than fact based. If you're trying to make a point, don't do it by making stuff up just to justify your own stance.

[ January 04, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Videodoc ]

 

[Videodoc]

A lot of the digital vs. film debate depends on what you are doing - and even then the number of pros shooting film is getting smaller and smaller. When I shot weddings, the number one thing that bothered me was not absoutely knowing what I had on film - flash problems, people blinking etc.. I could almost go back to doing it with a digital. Anyway, I don't know why we are even debating it seeing you already have a 20D.

And, I have to agree with Digital Photo - start making money with what is there now. It reminds me of the old joke - "if prices keep falling at Wal-Mart, how come nothing is free?"

My only other advice is to find a niche in it you - at the very least - really like if not love. If you don't enjoy it, the marketing and business end of it can kill the whole deal. And, when we have so precious little spare time as it is, you won't be motivated to spend that time productively if you don't like it, and why should you? Love it and the money will follow.

 

[WV24fpspro]

Sorry vdoc; but the facts are just proving you wrong. It appears as though some people rarely have entered a place such as a library, bookstore, or pro camera shop. Here's the facts for people who rarely see the inside of such places.

Popular Photography January 2005 issue; compares the Canon EOS-1 DS Mark II to ASA 200 speed film; article starts on page 36, photo proof on page 38 upper right side. Need I be more specific? Note that the Mark II won on that particular test. In other real world tests it didn't win. As for the rest of the proof, believe what you want to and try to find your own answers. I can't waste time giving you over a half dozen links when I clearly am aware of what the exact specs of the camera are.

I've already given the Mark II literally every professsional test except with the number of cycles its able to withstand. I know exactly what every high end digital camera is and is NOT capable of.

Sorry vdoc but the facts stand on their own. You may also have overlooked that this is what I've been doing professionally for well over twenty years. I have the educational background, professional documented experience, portfolios, and also the resume to prove it. If there isn't a question I can't answer on my own I know exactly where to go to find the answer- quickly and accurately.

Next please...

 

[Videodoc]

Worked in a pro camera store, shot weddings with a Hassie, stills as a hobby for 25 years, shooting video professionally for 15 years, read all the time. Never, ever quoted Pop. Photo as a source.

Sorry, just had to defend myself and fuel the fire. All in all, it's comparing apples to oranges. All I'm saying is that there are only a few bastions left that digital cannot touch - if and when they close the gap is debatable.

Can you tell me that your clients are going to tell the difference in an 8x12, and any slight difference negates the benefit of the digital workflow. Would you go into business today and invest your money and knowledge into film? Depends on what you are doing I suppose.

I truly appreciate film. I've shaked more tanks of Tri-X than I care to remember. If I had the space, I'd love to try and do some medium or large format work - I love large print black and whites. But if I'm going into business for myself, I'd start with digital. Invest in the lenses and update bodies as needed. My 2 cents.

[ January 05, 2005, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Videodoc ]

 

[punky cameraman]

my 2 cents

the first day that tv news used video tape from the field and turned spot news images around on a dime the days of tv film were dead.

quality was irrelevant.

the professional photojournalist i traveled with this last election stepped off the plane and transmitted their pictures, some transmitted pictures as they were shooting them.

film in still photojournalism is dead.

i'm a fan of film, but you can't hide from the truth. film takes time and people are impatient.
quality, unfortunately is irrelevant.

years ago i spent a very long hard day working a plane crash story, i had tape no one else had, i worked it or at least thought i had.
an hour before air two guys walk in with really bad hi-8 tape of the crash scene moments after.
you know the rest of the story
quality "of the images" had nothing to do with it
they had the shot and i did not.

film is dead.
history will no longer wait for the film to develop.
its sad but true.

punky