Before going Digital with your business....

Ellis is right, however, one probably cannot charge $450/hour for digital work. See

http://editorialphoto.com/Internallinks/digital_manifesto.html

"This was not meant to be a digital vs. film debate, but a discussion of finances of one verses the other and a reminder that, as a professional, you do need to put a value on your TIME."

And how exactly does one spend more TIME dropping off a CD-R than one would spend dropping off a roll of film?

One wouldn't. You compared Apples (a digital photographer doing custom post-processed prints in house) to Oranges (a film photographer dropping film off at a lab and not caring how things turn out).

"It is the PRE PROCESSING that must be done with digital that is the issue."

What pre-processing? Copying files to the CD-R?

Anything done at a computer, with the exception of image review, is POST processing and must be compared to similar work on scanned film or in a darkroom.

"MOST (note this is different that ALL) pros take RAW files and convert them to JPEGs and then alter each image that is a keeper"

They do this because it takes dramatically less TIME than the equivalent work in a darkroom, yet yields the kind of human optimized results photographers have always sought. With digital human optimization and custom quality control on a large scale become possible.

But one doesn't have to do this. One only does this if the benefits are worth the costs.

"This is commonly done in PhotoShop and altered BEFORE proofing (levels adjusted, Brightness/contrast, stauration, hue etc etc.)"

No, you're describing post processing that can only rightfully be compared to darkroom work. This digital post processing is done to get images which are superior to film prints with no real, human optimized post processing.

"Very few professionals that I know use anything other than a professional lab for prooofing (IOW they do not drop their expensive compact flash cards off at WalMarts or Walgreens GEEZE!!!)"

Who said anything about Walmart or Walgreens?

"Film is a cost, but it is a small cost in the face of the cost of switching to digital, so I did not count it in.. and I was discussing GROSS income and not net."

I can digitally shoot the equivalent of $200-$400 worth of film and processing in a week without even thinking about it, and that's for a hobby. So no, it's not a small cost.

It pays to shoot both digital and film. It all depends on what your client wants and how your fee's structure is set up.

* For the film crowd - you be pretty dumb to turn down a job because your not with the digital program. The way word of mouth goes with clients and the way they latch on to buzz words you could find yourself with the reputation of a dinosaur.

* For the digital crowd - There are still many clients out there that prefer film. Would you blow off a job because the client insisted on film?

Ellis is right when he talks about charging for all the things the lab used to do - that's now you. Labs and output centers never gave away anything for free and neither should you. Seems to me many photographers forget this simple fact.

This goes right down to a mark up on the CD's/DVD's you burn for the client, charges for providing multiple formats, spot retouching, making multiple copies of everything for the client and all the people they want it to go to.

I don't know why some are so adverse to digital. Sure film works well (I still have about 50% of my clients that prefer it) and if you have half a brain you can make bucks with it. The same goes for digital, the other half of my clients have latched onto the digital buzzword and won't look back... do I turn their money down? Hardly.

It ain't rocket science no matter how you slice it.

Wow many answers to a simple point. Ill have to re-read it again. But from expereience from my first wedding me and a friend shot, I leanred that I dont want to spend too many hours in photoshop getting images right. It does make less money....but as a student or early photographer I need the experience so its works out....but I know the $$$ shrinks by the minute while working on them.

THe best thing I know to do is have a friend or someone who is decent enough at photoshop pay them a flat rate to help, get them done, and fast to maximize potential. Then if the client wants mroe detail or furhter finishing charge them more. Make it a good shot/edit but leave just room enough to want more, well an enhancement like b/w, sepia, vignett, etc.

Otherwise like my buddy puts extra hours into it for nothing.

Another lesson I learned in digital.............it doesnt matter in the end its the client that you cater all tastes and determines what to do with said pictures. Each one is so sifferent I let each one determine what they want and then make price from that (hours already in ther for the editng)

Im getting to farr with myself again. Digital there are too many factors these days. It may be faster money than film does at times, but the $$$ does shrink depending on what and how you do it.

"I can digitally shoot the equivalent of $200-$400 worth of film and processing in a week without even thinking about it, and that's for a hobby. So no, it's not a small cost."

If I was shooting that much film for a HOBBY I would go digital too.

This is about making money and getting enough for you time as a professsional. If you shoot 1200 images at a job you save $150 on film and if your time is worth $300 an hour the film savings just allowed you to "save" enough to pay for 1/2 hour at the computer. Most guys spend more than 1/2 hour at the puter when they get home from the job, so the cost of film for this sort of thing is negligable.

Again, I KNOW if you go digital you become the "lab" tho most pros I know do NOT print their own, so they still pay for printing a proof book and everything they would pay a lab to do EXCEPT develop and cut the film. Developing film w/o printing is is less per roll then the cost of the film purchase, so it is still not a lot to "save" by going to digital.. Lets be generous and say that film purchase and developing 1200 images is $300 (NO printing just developing). By not dealing with film you are saving $300 or one hour at the computer for this shoot example.

Still, to cover the cost of processing your own at home in PS or some other software, you either have to raise your prices or not do the computer work. Most of the pros I know absolutely do fiddle with every image after batch converting from RAW to JPEG. Then they burn a CD which is sent off to a pro lab for the production or a professional quality proof book.

So, again, the point is they are spending time on a computer to get the results they want and unless they raise their price to cver this they are going to see money lost and IF it takes them away from ANOTHER shoot they will lose money. This was the point of my original post.

Of course, I expect to use both media as each has its advantages for me. I am not saying "don't shoot digital as it is bad and film is better." Not at all. I am just saying that the photographer is going to spend more time on any job if he is shooting digital and it should be considered if you are going to make money.

Raising prices is all fine and well, but you cannot raise them beyond what your skill and the market will support.

"This is about making money and getting enough for you time as a professsional. If you shoot 1200 images at a job you save $150 on film and if your time is worth $300 an hour the film savings just allowed you to "save" enough to pay for 1/2 hour at the computer."

...sigh...let's try this one last time:

* You do not need to spend any time in front of a computer with digital. You can drop the images off at a lab just as easily as you can film. The resulting prints will be comparable in quality to mass processed film prints. Actually better when shooting under non-daylight balanced light.

* If you spend time at a computer post processing your digital images, you are getting far superior results to mass processed film. To achieve the same results with film would require custom processing, either digital or darkroom.

* It is improper to compare custom digital processing to mass film processing because the results are not the same. If you want to compare the time and cost involved in custom digital processing, compare it to custom film processing. I guarantee you that digital will come out way ahead both in terms of time and cost.

* The reason most pros who go digital do more custom processing is because digital has lowered the costs of such custom work to the point that it becomes a realistic possibility on a large scale. Yes custom digital processing takes more time, but it also produces vastly superior results to mass processing.

"So, again, the point is they are spending time on a computer to get the results they want..."

Which are superior to the results they could get by just dropping film off at a lab. These superior results have a value that you're not taking into account in your financial estimates.

"I am just saying that the photographer is going to spend more time on any job if he is shooting digital and it should be considered if you are going to make money."

For EQUAL jobs, no he will not. The job either calls for custom post processing, or it calls for mass prints. If you have a contest and both the digital and film guys are doing the *same thing*, in either case the digital guy will save time and money.

But you're not comparing the same things.

Nancy is living in a world in which pros mysteriously make/save more money after

switching to digital despite her insistence that it's costing them more time/money.

Who are you going to believe: her, or your bank account?

<p>We have a customer we do extensive digtal product photography for his

construction equipment. Because we do it digitally and save money on

development costs and don't have to worry about film getting screwed up and

the whole "did we get it" factor... we are able to pass some of the

savings on to him. Film often has more character, but digital is awesome for

commercial purposes.<br>

<br>

Adam<br>

<a href="http://www.paradigmprint.com/corporate-marketing-planning/

portfolio/commercial-photography/index.html">Paradigm Digital

Photography</a><br>

<a href="http://www.paradigmprint.com/corporate-marketing-planning/

portfolio/web-site-consulting/index.html">Paradigm Web Site Design</a><br>

<a href="http://www.paradigmhost.com/">Paradigm Hosting</a></p>

You also need to consider what type of photography you do. Shooting a product shot

in a studio setting is completely different than shooting a wedding. For a single shot,

running back and forth often takes more time than the shot itself.

It would be grand if we could actually fill that hour that we are behind the computer

(or at the lab, for that matter) with $300 an hour work.