[Leica] The high price of progress

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> shooting digital was just under $25,000 !!! And several others are in the
> same category.
> 
> Many others who use hundreds of rolls of film per month are saving large
> amounts of income by dropping film and going digital. Sure they're using
> $10 - $12,000 dollar digital cameras, but so what, it still comes down to
> it's far cheaper using digital than film.
> 
> Now if one is a weekend photo warrior and it's only a few rolls every 6
> months I suppose the cost factor isn't so relevant.
> 
> ted 
> 
> 
The other problem for the "weekend photo warrior" what I've figured out in
the past few days are the demands digital makes on the user.
Its not just bring the film into the drugstore, pick up the prints, put them
in the photo album like it used to be.
Although they may have almost re created that in effect digitally.

Getting into digital for a lot of people means getting a printer. "you need
a printer don't you?"
And make it also more likely the person will have things uploaded to their
website or some kind of gallery.

So they are either (what I call) printing to monitor for their website and
emails. Just tweaking density and contrast for the most part.
Or they are printing to inkjet. And a lot of people don't care for that.
I know at least one local guy who I've known for 25 years who has had a 2200
for well over a year and not one print to show for it. From it. Not one. His
one inkjet he's got in his stack of prints he had done custom at a pro lab.
Although he does have that STACK OF PRINTS.
As in big prints. A portfolio even.

Another local guy I've only known for 10 years and never seen much of
anything from but has had for a brief moment at one time every choice mouth
watering piece of equipment anyone has ever dreamed for using.
"Oh I had a 3.4 Super Angulon a few years ago. Sold it"
"Oh I had a Linhof Master Technika a few years ago. Sold it"
"Oh I had a Thumbar a few years ago. Sold it"
"Oh I had a Alpa when I first got married. Sold it"
"Been there. Done that".
And you'll never see a print. Nor slide.

He's had an Epson 4000 for perhaps half a year.
After all it IS THE piece of modern equipment TO HAVE.
Problem is with a printer its more results orientated than with a camera
even.
With a printer people have the tendency to say "ok so where's the prints?".
Less then with a camera even.
With a camera you could have boxes of Kodachrome somewhere in your basement
you can't quite find and have to organize.
So you just show them your gear.
But a printer. You expect a stack of prints. Maybe something hanging on the
wall. Other than the baby sitter.

You probably think I am making this up or exaggerating beyond all
recognition. Email me off list and I'll name names and places of work. Where
they take their lunch breaks. Where they work out.

Lots of "weekend photo warriors" are not into it for the follow through. The
accountability. The want to make it go "click" and have "Kodak to the rest".

The very same people are also too chinsey to shell out for a stack of custom
8x10's to show people it goes without saying. Except for that first
acquaintance I just mentioned with the 2200.

It's snapshot-city machine-prints from the get-go with most people even
those you meet on most fairly advanced sounding photo lists.
But I guess they're making it so picking your 4x6's from the drugstore or
wherever has gotten digital as well. They say "Kodak" on the back and
everything and are semigloss borderless.

Except yesterday at the local "Shutterbug" where I was looking for camera
bags as usual there was a lady who was standing there watching a machine
crunch out her snapshots. It was loud! I think she was the one who made it
happen. Put her CompactFlash card in or something. Set up a few parameters
and perambulators.
I guess there's a new art form - work around - printing process...

WALGREEN'S PRINTING

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/