At 04:45 PM 9/1/03, B.D. wrote (in part):
There're a number of reasons why someone such as Dennis Reggie, who
charges more to shoot one wedding - and he is booked every weekend - than
I've ever paid for a car ;-), has switched to digital - and they have to
do with cost savings, efficiencies on numerous levels, etc.
B. D.
Equating Reggie's business model and work flow to the small independent
wedding photographer whose overwhelming market is the "average small-town
Joe Working-Stiff" is totally falacious. Dennis uses gaffers/grips, office
staff and people to do routine "back end" work. The vast majority of
wedding photographers work solo, including me, albeit I have assisted a
couple others with a few weddings that went well beyond the norm
(statistical outliers compared to the rest). The most common assistant (if
there is one) is an **unpaid** one: the spouse (or SO). Reggie's clients
are not pinching pennies to make a wedding happen, he's not working on a
small margin, and he doesn't have the same "price pressure" competition (if
any). His weddings are in the realm of "cost is no object." If you must
ask how much the fuel, pilot and landing fees for a private 737 costs, you
cannot afford the plane. Likewise, if you must consider how much the
wedding photography will cost in selecting one, you cannot afford Dennis
Reggie either.
I won't get into specifics as it's proprietary business information. My
remarks about cost were based on working up the business model for digital
versus film on several occasions. No matter how I slice and dice the
numbers, including optimism for digital and pessimism for film (to see how
sensitive it is), digital ends up costing about 25% more per proof print in
a proof book just in recurring services and consumable materials. That
doesn't include capital depreciation (to eventually repair/replace
equipment) or the value of my time either, both of which also increase no
matter how I slice and dice their numbers.
This has been confirmed separately by a friend who is using digital (an
E-20N) to shoot high school sports for parents of team members. He finally
did a work-up of costs and admitted his recurring costs are about 25-33%
more than if he had gone the 35mm film route and his capital investment in
digital hardware will hold less value over time (depreciate faster). His
barrier to change is the enormous capital investment he has in digital
hardware and what it would require to switch. In addition, he's still
fighting low light limitations of his E-20N under available light, range
limits of flash when he's allowed to use one, and I get to hear "war
stories" about some of the "back end" work he's having to do.
On the back end of the business I send the film to a pro lab, edit down the
proofs and assemble them to "tell the story" in a proof book. I spend less
time doing this at a lower recurring cost of materials and services, and
with less capital depreciation than I could with even the fanciest of
wondrous digital hardware.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|