Agency Based Discussion > ScandinavianStockPhoto.com

Scanstock in the news

(1/3) > >>

Quevaal:
I might mention that Scanstock was in the news here in Norway recently. Typical old school photographers starting to nag about microstock, but Scanstock got interviewd on National radio (P2) and in the third biggest paper here (who also happens to buy photos from scanstock):
http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article1366656.ece

An extremely long discussion unfolded at the Norwegian photo site foto.no because of it. (Strange how a group of people insists that cheap photo euqipment, computers, software and ease of processing should not somehow result in lower prices.)

leaf:
well personally i don't think photography is really any cheaper.

Lenses are the same price
computers / extra hard drive space / internet : you didn't need them before.. but are offset by film
camera body: the prices are WAY higher.  You could buy a good SLR for $100 before digital.

i think what has done it is the internet and ease of selling.  Additionallly there is a lot larger market than there has been before because of the internet and cheap printing costs for churches / non profit groups and such.  in the 80's you didn't see too many cheapo color leaflets.

madelaide:
A good SLR for US$100?  I was very uninformed about market prices then.  My Minolta 600si camera body, bought in '96, costed about US$400.

Digital cameras will be expensive for a good while at least.  Lenses may cost the same, but think that once you have a camera and one/few memory cards, all you spend is your time and batteries.  So even if a digital camera does not cost more to a manufacturer than a regular one, it's inherent value is higher.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf:
with film, you could buy an old SLR and get the exact same results as a new one.  You just hat to perhaps put in a little more time and knowledge when using it.  That is what i meant about the $100 camera.

Once you have a digital camera though, you still need hard drive space that gets contanstly used up, a $600 piece of software (photoshop) if you are going to get serious. Both your camera and computer get outdated so quickly that it is almost essential to upgrade at least once every 5 years.

Although i agree that digital is great and 'free' to take pictures and make stock images, I am not sure it is much cheaper in the end.

madelaide:
I upgrade the computer regardless of photo needs, so this doesn't make an economy.

Paint Shop Pro is as good as PS for most all I need.  There are a few PS tools that I don't have at PSP7, but maybe later versions have it.  PSP, now a Corel product, costs US$100, but it used to cost US$70 and less in the past.

Storage?  Hmm, yes, but it's reasonably cheap these days.

Now compare this to tons of film and processing cost, plus the cost and space of frames and boxes (or negative holders and photo albums if you shoot negative).  And don't forget anti-humidity chemicals.

I can easily spend about US$300 in a one-month vacation in film, processing, frames and boxes.  Costwise, I'm sure digital would be better for me.

And that's without the tons of experimenting I can do with digital.

Regards,
Adelaide

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page