It’s a rant, I wrote it because it bugged me.

Or rather the tired and old “Film vs. Digital” cost thing.

Last week I was asked to put in a proposal for film photoshoot. This was supposed to be a whole day affair with up to 15 models doing “lifestyle” shoots for a product. Groovy.

My initial proposal came in at $2510 plus HST.

The breakdown was as follows:

Basic Shoot cost (up to 8 hours): $700
Film (20 rolls total including processing): $400
Scanning ($0.50/frame): $360
Post Production (estimate 90mins per roll at $35/h): $1050

Today then I was told that the shoot was delayed and that my pricing was “too expensive” and that the budget is $500 (something I didn’t know initially, if I had I wouldn’t even have bothered) and as much as they like my film shooting style, they will have to go with someone who does digital (as it was implied, this HAD to be cheaper, no film, you know) and also can bring a whole pile of lightening equipment.

Wow. I am not sure if I should shake my head or feel insulted.

Let’s look at this from a business perspective. My total time commitment on this shoot would have been at least 38 hours, that is the 8 hours for shooting and the 30 hours for post processing, not counting me going to the location, the cost of equipment etc. You get the idea.

The cost for equipment isn’t any lower shooting digital, if anything because digital equipment is expected to be replaced every two to three years the cost for equipment has to be recovered much quicker, say, within a year. On a $3500 digital camera (with an okay lens) that means for those $500 shoots you need to do an awful lot, and there aren’t any time savings, I already calculated less than 3 minutes per frame in post and considering the shooting environment and the ideas that were presented to me this could be underestimated.

Add to this that the expectation is that whoever will do this gig for $500 will bring along a whole whack of light equipment which is not cheap and will also take a long time to set up. Meaning: most likely much more than eight hours on location(s) (yes, that’s a plural S, the idea was to shoot at several different locations, which also means all the equipment needs to be broken down and transported to a new location, then set up again).

So, whoever will be doing this for $500 will, at the end of the day, have earned nothing beyond a warm and fuzzy feeling. S/He may have paid of a bit of the equipment, but there will be zero profit, zero eating too.

The funny thing is, the guy who asked for the quote produces an actual, physical product. He would not just hand it out to people on the street for free, he wants to make some money. So he calculates his cost, then adds a percentage on top and then sells it for that price. Meanwhile, he expects the photographer to work for some charity money.

This is why I think photography as a line of business is dead, as digital downloads have destroyed (or at least badly injured) the music distribution industry, so has the idea that “digital is cheaper” and “everybody has a camera”. I have heard this a few times before where people put in proposals for wedding shoots only to be told that it was too expensive and that Uncle Herb has a Digital Camera and he’s not that bad, so he’ll do it instead.

If you look at my above list I do have $750 in direct film related cost (film + scanning), but the reality is that if I would shoot digital I would have worked this in via “equipment rental”, because those HDDs, Memory Cards and new digital bodies every few years aren’t free either. It IS a business and if I do it, I do it to make money, not to get a warm and fuzzy feeling about being allowed to work for someone for nothing.

Am I miffed at being not hired? Not really, it isn’t my line of business per-se. I make money somewhere else at a much higher hourly rate, but I am somewhat surprised (okay, not really) that a business person who should know about cost and profit margins, thinks that for $500 someone could do this shoot for him and make money off of it.

Obviously there are always people out there who will try to get something for nothing, but I have the feeling that this is more the rule than the exception these days when it comes to photography, unfortunately.

Still mesmerized with the 20mm lens on the GF1. Time for a shave?

17.08.2010

Yesterday was “Pride Parade Day” and I got out and shot a few photos.

In general I have to say I found myself rather disappointed this year. It wasn’t a very campy event (not that the previous years were really raunchy) and it seems most of the floats were corporate ones, used to advertise themselves, still a bit mind boggling to watch this whole thing.

The funniest thing must have been the Conservative Party’s “float” though. It was one convertible with the party logo on the side, a guy at the wheel and someone else walking on the side, that’s it. The NDP showed up in force and even the Liberals managed to get a group together, but man, that Conservative attempt to appeal to this group of voters was dead before it started. I found it so sad I didn’t even bother taking a photo.

My general feeling with the event yesterday was that they are hurting badly for money, they had signs everywhere asking for donations for the parade as well as telling people it costs half a million dollars to put it on. Side effect of the economy?

Now that the fireworks are behind us, here are all four of the shows.

Personally I think Mexico won, but apparently the Judges had a different opinion, ah well, so it goes.

Enjoy the shows:

Night 1 – United States:

Night 2 – Spain:

Night 3 – Mexico:

Night 4 – China:

And today, the barges have arrived:

If you want to re-watch last years show, here they are, in all their glory:

Night 1: Canada

Night 2: South Africa

Night 2a: Mother Nature Edition

Night 3: UK

Night 4: China

One week to go.

Every year people meet at the Vancouver Art Gallery and start smoking up to celebrate Pot and all it means to them.

Of course I was there this year, you can find a photo gallery on Flickr.

Or you can watch a slideshow I set up below the fold (on a variety of different hosting platforms).

This, btw, is my favourite shot I took:

Now, light up and enjoy the show:

420 celebration in Vancouver in 2010 from Michael Kalus on Vimeo.

Of course you can download the file directly to your computer form blip.tv

It has come up in discussions with others in the past and the one thing that pretty clear to me is that most people are not able to comprehend a “sudden” collapse in the Earth’s biosphere.

It shouldn’t really be too surprising, we do exist as part of something bigger but we usually do not realize the complexity that goes on around us, we’re not “made to see” these kinds of things and when it comes to timescales things get even more wobbly.

100 years in human time is a long long time. In the age of the Earth it is less than a blink of the eye, so talking of “sudden collapse” strikes most people as odd because it can still take a hundred years.

Still, there are no lifeboats for us to “abandon ship” on, so maybe we need to understand this, or have future generations live with the consequences.