Is photography a luxury?

[John Kasaian]

At one time, pre-Kodak, photography was considered a luxury. Then it became banal. I think that in these days it is becoming more appreciated.

When I see all the family snapshots my bride takes with her digi, I am sure that if she were shooting Kodacolor we'd be a few blocks closer to the poorhouse. But digital is cheap (so far) The only snaps in 35mm are B&W, which I usually take--and I am picky about my shots. On a 5 night family cruise to Baja I shot less than three rolls of agfapan---but oh those B&Ws!

Is taking the 8x10 out with a couple of holders to "bag" a landscape a luxury? In my case, the luxury isn't the expense in the film shot (because I'm a frugal guy) but of the time and gas money spent.

[Ralph Barker]

Getting started in LF (or any format, for that matter) is probably not a good decision for someone who has just lost their job and has a family to feed. For those already equipped to shoot, however, the incremental cost of actually producing negatives is relatively minor, and is often done from supplies already on hand. Plus, photography is cheaper than booze or drugs.

In dire cases, one can always stand at a nearby freeway on-ramp with a sign reading, "Will work for 8x10 film".

[Daniel Grenier]

In these difficult economic times, has photography become a luxury meant for the affluent few?

You don't say whether you mean the practice of it or the purchasing of it.

The practice of it by most people here, I assume, may have slowed down a little. Speaking for myself, the practice of it has slowed down and the purchasing of it has stopped completely. There's no way I can drop $1500 anymore for someone's work like I could have done (and did) not so long ago. These are tough times indeed.

[uniB]

Well if everything went wrong and the mortgage wasn't getting paid I'd have to sell off some stuff but even if I was homeless I'd still have to have a camera with me to rest my head on!

It doesn't have to be expensive (although it normally is!) so I don't think it's a luxury

[Vaughn]

Art is not a luxury.

[RichardRitter]

If I can't photograph I would go back to drawing and painting.

[Rider]

It is a luxury but not in terms of the cash required. You can buy excellent gear for a very low price these days, and with digital development costs and even publication costs are minimal.

What is a luxury though is to be able to devote time to it. The time to shoot and develop and print, but even more so time to visualize, time to take a step back and not rush through life.

I think this is what the OP meant by the question.

[Ben Syverson]

I agree! Which is the bigger luxury -- a $4000 DSLR that'll be toxic e-junk in 10 years, or a $500 Super Graphic that will last until they're making inexpensive 4x5 digital sensors?

To be serious for a moment though, this question could be asked at any point, not just an economic downturn. It's usually posed something like this: "How can you spend time and money making art, when you could be (fill in humanitarian cause here)?"

That's how Marx felt. Personally I think it's a bit naive to insist that every activity we humans do must directly contribute to the greater good. If you want to cover your house in beer cans for no particular reason, you should do it! It also ignores the intangible and unquantifiable ways that art enhances peoples' lives. Think of all the laughter and joy and puzzlement the Beer Can House has provided over the years...

If we give up creativity, we may as well just lay down and die.

There is more low priced good quality used LF equipment available now than I have ever seen.

[redrockcoulee]

Photography is a luxury the way that having a dog is or another hobby. We make the time for what is the most important and we can afford to do what we want, even if it is at a reduced rate. This of course is not applicable for those caught in extreme finanical crisis. An entire LF set up cost less than a large screen TV and film for a month is less than cable. Besides even if the unemployment rate hits 15% that means that 85% of the people still have jobs. I cannot think of any reason I should not continue with photography cause someone else has lost their job or a company in another province or country has gone under. I pay more in vet bills a month on my one remaining dog and yes I would give up spending money on photography rather than not support her meds but that does not mean I would have to stop shooting.

[KEK]

If it"s your business you don"t have a choice. If it"s a hobby compare it to other hobbies like golf skiiing or boating and it looks pretty reasonable.