I still do some portraits on film, actually. I use a medium format Pentax I got for pennies on the dollar. Print film has a wonderful exposure curve and you expose for the shadows because it preserves highlights (the bride’s dress and white clothing) extremely well. I then scan the negs. Digital behaves like slide film, when you blow a highlight, it’s gone. Even when shooting RAW.
The bigger problem is that a lot of people who have digital cameras suddenly fancy themselves photographers. They don’t understand the Golden Ratio, chiaroscuro, hyperfocal distance, or even the basic workings of their cameras. That doesn’t stop them from offering their services and now brides expect wedding shoots for a thousand dollars. It takes me about 100 hours to do a wedding from start to finish with all of the work required on the photos. That means I’m earning $10 an hour before you take my expenses out. I’m down to about $6.10 per hour once expenses are removed. The minimum wage here is $11.25. Why would I bother?
A lot of brides go for the $1000 photographer, get utter crap for photos, and then somehow manage to track me down and ask me if I can fix the photos? (I’m the local Photoshop expert.) They’re not fixable as you can’t repair garbage composition on low-quality JPEGs. It’s a case of, “you made your bed so now you get to sleep in it.”
There is no longer anyone in my community doing passport photos. There aren’t enough of them per month to cover the other expenses (e.g. liability insurance). The weddings – that I now refuse to do – used to subsidize that service. People have to drive to the city for those.
I take pictures and sell them to greeting card companies, calendar companies, and for the covers of annual reports, etc., through stock photo companies. I’m with both Getty and Masterfile. Not enough to live on there, but I have a day job and I appreciate getting some gravy. I also appreciate not having to deal with brides or their mothers.
I tried to channel Cheech and Chong at that point in my life. Ugly. Glad it’s behind me.
@anon9798425 A lot of Facebook users are from India but I don’t know the stats specifically but it tends to steer closer to those in the 20s age group. India has the second largest population in world at 1.2 billion people.
Yeah, 88% for 18-29 and 84% for 30-49 of Americans.
Yes. I would think the numbers you posted were mostly just Americans, and perhaps a few Europeans, so the numbers should actually be more comparable than the total worldwide stats. I could try to find the worldwide stats later, when I have time, if you want. But anyway, these numbers should be more relevant to the numbers you posted and the discussion about how different generations use social media.
@shutterbug I think when you’re young and in your 20s, you want to meet new people and experience the latest and greatest but when you get older… things tend to mellow down, priorities change and experience plays a larger role.
I’m always open to meeting someone new and interesting. I like learning new things and experimenting with new techniques. My experience with social media is that is the same old same old, only more of it and faster. I’ve met more people I admire on this site than I ever have on Facebook.
@shutterbug This site is meant for schizophrenics which is probably why you’d prefer to meet people here than on Facebook. Meeting other schizophrenics who understand the stigma, the experiences and behaviours of the disease.
Pixel, I have to say that you are the 20% who do well from the disease.
I think we all succeed in our own way and shouldn’t be measured in terms of competition or if we can work or not. Success and recovery should be an individual thing. I’m feeling good to take the time out this time to work on feeling better and more prepared for work. In those 7 years I refused help or therapy for work. This my time !!!
I’m 26 years old. I’m part of the generation you’re talking about. I have definitely noticed a shift away from Facebook among people of my age. I hardly use it, myself.
