|
that process masses of prints.
I'm referring to typical freelance photographers as well. Your typical photographer shooting for a magazine doesn't process "reams" of photos. A photographer shooting in those conditions needs to shoot LOTS of pictures in order to get usable ones, professional, amateur or otherwise. If you're shooting live anything (from animals to action sports), you shoot lots of pictures.
Film isn't cheap. Good color slide film is pretty damned expensive on a shot by shot basis.
Of course, there's also the time factor. Shooting film doesn't give you usable shots for an event as it unfolds and isn't ready for publication immediately after.
With digital, you shoot an event, edit it on a laptop computer (in many cases while still at the event, this happens frequently with sports photography), and transmit the photos using wireless methods. The photos can appear in a morning edition on the East Coast for an event that occurred late at night on the West Coast.
Of course using your pricing argument, no amateur should invest in quality glass either. After all, they come out with new technology regularly (from new and better coatings, to faster focusing to image stabilization, to internal focusing, etc.). A good telephoto prime can cost $4,000 or more. It too is replaced by something better in short order, and much like DSLRs, the improvements are relatively minor.
In many cases, the technology developed for digital cameras appears later in film bodies as well (for instance Nikons new metering methods and focusing system appeared for the first time in a film body in their F6 released last year which by the way was initially priced at close to $3,000, not exactly a drastic difference in price between that and digital when you consider the savings in costs of film, etc. in the first year of ownership).
Then of course there's also the "bulk" factor. I can carry enough media to store over a thousand images of the highest quality in my shirt pocket. When travelling, I can transfer those same images to my laptop, and reuse the memory. I don't have to worry about transferring delicate film through airport x-ray machines (which we all know is a daunting proposition for irreplaceable images).
The benefits of digital far outweigh the imagined cost limitations.
The only reason I don't have a D2X is because I don't sell my images (perhaps someday, I haven't taken anything I consider sale worthy as yet). If I was making any money at all with my photos, I would gladly invest in such a piece of equipment. (And, in case you're wondering, pro-level DSLRs maintain their resale value fairly well for the most part).
|