Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,821   Online: 976
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    273

    Transparency Expense

    The cost of transparency film for me, coupled with processing costs has risen to the point where it no longer makes financial sense to use it for shooting general stock subjects. Instead I've been experimenting with colour negative film which is cheaper. I've been particularly impressed with Kodak Portra which seems to scan well.

    Have others made a similar switch? What has been the reaction, if any, from Stock Libraries?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    53
    Images
    8
    I don't shoot specifically for stock, but I do have some landscape and nature images accepted by Alamy and Getty; these include both transparency and colur neg (mostly Portra) and the libraries concerned don't know or ask what capture medium was used - even whether if it is digital or film.

    Of course, actually making sales is a different matter .... but my tiny number of sales do include both colour negative and slide.

  3. #3
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    794
    In what 21st Century world does it make sense to shoot "general stock" with anything other than digital? Enquiring minds want to know.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    720
    I simply LOVE transparency film but I agree it is so expensive now that I think twice before using it. My last lot was the reincarnated Agfa Precisa whic did actually turn out extremely well with well saturated colours but not over the top. In fact the colours are some of the best I have seen - and very neutral. They scan beautifully too.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Some of those stock houses already have so many older transparencies on file that a few more won't make much difference, unless its specifically contemporary subject matter. Things have sure changed. My brother would get four thousand dollars for one-time rights to publish a single 4x5 color transparency back in the mid-60's. Extrapolate that into today's currency! What digital has done is make anything equivalent worth about a five dollar remittance now, if you're lucky enough to get paid at all. So why would any 21st century photographer even bother? ... But Rol, neither you nor I belong to the 21C anyway.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    The cost of transparency film for me, coupled with processing costs has risen to the point where it no longer makes financial sense to use it for shooting general stock subjects. Instead I've been experimenting with colour negative film which is cheaper.
    I guess it depends on the market. In EU the E-6 films are slightly more expensive (Provia 100F 5 pack costs 28.4 EUR, Portra 160 costs 22 EUR), the chemistry is slightly more expensive, too (Tetenal 5L E-6 kit costs 90 EUR, C-41 costs 75 EUR), BUT I find E-6 easier to master, the results are superior, too. As long as E-6 is available I will stick with it.

    J.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    159
    I used a lot of 35mm slides a few years ago, then switch to mainly B^W. Last couple years I started with 4x5 and tried color negs for a few months, but just prefer the colors and grains of E-6. The choice is very limited now in the 4x5 format, but I will stick with that and B&W for film use. The cost is significant :-( but at least developing my own helps a lot.
    Last edited by didjiman; 11-21-2013 at 05:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by ROL View Post
    In what 21st Century world does it make sense to shoot "general stock" with anything other than digital? Enquiring minds want to know.

    For me it's down to cost. If you're shooting digi for stock sales, most libraries are demanding bigger & bigger file sizes, that only the latest (and most expensive) full frame digi SLR's can achieve. When I can fulfill that demand with my reliable battery free s/h Rolleiflex, costing a fraction of the latest digi wonder, then what's the point of investing serious money into a digital outfit?
    To add to the argument, fees from stock sales have taken an almighty tumble over the past couple of years, and may even dry up altogether because magazines etc., are prepared to use pics. from people's i-phones providing they're free.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin