You deserve your own reality show. I picture you as the bad guy on Dragons Den. Let those wannabes pitch their idea to the hardened Hank Paulson like investment banker. Who needs the cold north when you can have your own show.
You deserve your own reality show. I picture you as the bad guy on Dragons Den. Let those wannabes pitch their idea to the hardened Hank Paulson like investment banker. Who needs the cold north when you can have your own show.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
Earlier on I made a distinction between commercial and artistic photography so I should be clear here and say that I didn't look on artistic photography as a business driven by profit.Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
And naturally I would pass on a business investment in a commercial photography business based entirely on film (unless there's some specific reason to use film.) But If we were talking about an artist with vision and skill who did amazing photography, that would be a good business investment. I would invest in that even if there were more profitable uses for my money.
Bottom line is we do what we do because we like it, not because it is the most profitable way to spend our money. I think that even the most mercenary of commercial photographers realizes that he can make more money by, I don't know, becoming an electrician for example. But does what he does because ultimately, he just plain likes it.
You realize, Jay, that you are now taking issue with many forms of patronage? ...
It would seem to me that yet again another thread, one that promised to be especially interesting and useful, has degenerated. This appears to be happening a great deal of late. The reasons are beyond me but I'm beginning to find it all a little dispiriting. Hopefully I'm not alone and that things will soon begin to improve ...
Kind regards,
Richard
The original question posted was: Film photography, a good business in the future ?
I think the discussions based around 'business + film photography' (artistic or commercial) are appropriate and not going off topic. It has me engaged enough to want to read.
The way I understand it, patronage is not really a business - it is more of a symbiosis between art and money, a way for art to be created but not used as a tool for generating profit. It is in fact the opposite - patronage effectively uses money to generate art. But since it is one person's money and other person's art, it is mostly the exclusivity and ownership that comes into play.
Business, on the other hand, has profit as its primary goal and, in this case, uses art and/or photography as a primary tool. That's what Jay was trying to explain.
But yes, the thread has indeed degenerated, as most threads dealing with this topic do here, and as most threads regardless of the topic do lately anywhere. A lot of people are a lot angrier than before, most for obvious reasons but some for any reason or even no reason at all. Throw in a doze of pettiness, lack of logic and such and it does indeed become dispiriting very fast indeed. You are certainly not alone, but I'm not sure that things will going to improve any time soon. At least not before the overall economy starts improving, and we all know how that prospect looks.
Well-ll, Yes-s-s-s! It depends on what the cost and to what extreme to are willing to go to recover the data.
I am presently trying to read two JAZ disks that contain images that were stored 15 years ago. I have the JAZ drive. It requires a SCSI connector (already obsolete on most modern machines). Fortunately I have an old computer that has a SCSI. I installed the JAZ software, however for some reason the computer does not recognize the JAZ drive. The SCSI address is set to 3, and I have tried various settings. No success.
Needless to say, I don't have the drive specs so I could not rewrite the software to read the binary and to reformat it.
An alternative would be to find someone who has an operational JAZ drive. But I will bet that there is not another operational JAZ drive within 200 miles. Because there is personal information on the disks I want to be present to watch the data being offloaded. If I am not willing to go to the extreme to recover the data, my photos, including family photos, may never be recovered. I may end up smashing these disks and contributing them to the dumpster.
I did have success in recovering files from 10 ZIP disks. I have the ZIP drive which uses the parallel port (another obsolescence). Fortunately I still have a computer with one parallel port so I could recover them. If not, I might still have found someone with an older computer. But as time goes on, technology changes. The lesson is that if you aren't continuously converting your data files to the latest storage fad, eventually you will be losing it.
al
Thank you Marko, for making a distinction between business investment, and patronage, and I hope the distinction between either and working as an artist is obvious.
It seems a few people here have the idea I'm somehow anti-film, though I use film exclusively, and print optically, and that I'm anti-artist, which couldn't possibly be further from the truth. My photography is strictly personal, and while I aspire to artistry, I don't pretend to have achieved it. Profit, in any form, has never been a motive in my photography, and perhaps that allows me to maintain some objectivity regarding these issues, and I might appear cold to some as a result, but the truth is that my passions lie much closer to home.
If asked the question, "Do you think film-based photography will be a good basis for a business in the future?", I'd guess in most cases it won't. If asked, "Would you like for film-based photography to be a good basis for business in the future?", I'd say, absolutely. I think diversity in the marketplace is as good as diversity in other places, and unlike some of the examples given in this thread, film-based photography is dependent on film manufacturers, who have minimum production volume requirements to remain viable.
But, considering the examples of some artists doing business in film-based, or other chemical-based photography, I think my idea of a business (employees, profits, etc.) is a little different than what some others are suggesting, and these artisan "businesses" should theoretically be able to operate for as long as their materials are available, and their success probably depends largely on their ability to market themselves, as Brian has suggested. I don't think these are the kinds of businesses that generate a lot of profit, and I would never invest in one, except as an act of patronage (Richard). I think the real businesses are a tier or two above the artisan, as in those that supply them, but I don't think I'd invest in one of them, either.
So, if the question is rephrased as, "Is a business that consists of an artisan selling film-based prints, and not primarily concerned with profit a good business in the future?", I'd say, as good as it's ever been, for as long as the materials are available.
Yay!
No matter how much film you shoot, anyone who tries to inject some sobriety into the anti-digital romanticized film discussions here will be accused of being anti-film.It seems a few people here have the idea I'm somehow anti-film, though I use film exclusively, and print optically
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Just out of curiosity, was photography ever really a profitable business anyway, whether film or digital based?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks