mg Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I'm still working with film cameras, and in the last 2 to 3 years, I have observed that most major ad agencies as well as smaller ones require more and more to have their photos taken with a high-grade digital camera. The reasons are obvious: saving on scanning time (and money), previewing the final image on a monitor rather than on a polaroid, etc. <p> I have 2 questions. <p> 1) I live and work in Malaysia, where the requirement for digital is really getting stronger and stronger. So I'd like to know what it's like in other countries, mostly in Europe and U.S. <p> 2) Since I'm of course planning to go with the digital trend in the near future, I'd like to know how professionals price their work with a digital camera as opposed to the same assignment using film. <p> I'd appreciate if each poster could specify which country he's from. Thanks a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garry edwards Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 1. In England it depends a lot on the region. Here in the North the requirement is overwhelmingly for digital, and getting stronger all the time. Possibly a reason for this is that nearly all the big mail order clients are in this region, they have been insisting on digital for years to reduce costs. Advertising clients now insist on digital too, although they are mostly still willing to pay for film when it's justified, e.g. 5"x4". My London clients (200 miles away) are mixed on this, some of them are still happy to accept film.<br>My view on this is that the day rate needs to be increased by around 30% to cover captital cost, depreciation and the loss of profit on materials. But prices also have to relate to what the market will bear and you may feel a need to price differently. Personally I'd rather spend my time reading these forums than working for nothing and I price to make a profit, not to keep myself busy - but that's just me!<br>And the question you didn't ask - I've told you privately and now I'll tell you publicly - I would have gone out of business a long time ago if I hadn't gone digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooks short Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 I'm in Florida, USA and what Garry said is the way it is here. Everybody wants digital provided it's high end digital. In my experience a 6mp camera producing 18mb tiff files is not enough. My clients need a full-page, 8.5"x11" at 300 dpi minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paradigm-photo-adam Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Speaking as an "agency" who does photoraphy ... in texas and in colorado (usa), the increase in demand for digital photography is continually expanding. Having to work photos into all-electronic layouts of the web or digtal file formats for printing, digital photos are the best. All though we do a fair amount of scanning for fine art photographers. So it depends on who you work with. <br> <br> Adam<br> <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_griego Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Hi Marc (long time no see on Photo.net) Well I am closer in region to you than most (Hong Kong) so no surprise that many of my clients also request digital. I shoot with a Fuji S2Pro. It works fine - but does require some rethink on how to bill things out as compared to film. With film I usually made a good amount of change in mark up on film and processing - digital has to be handled the same way. You need to be able to show the client that the cost of the shoot will be approx. the same as shooting with film. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's less work on your part. Quite the opposite - now you get stuck being the lab. Retouchings, resizing, USM work, transferring files and burning media are all part of job - and should be charged for. I find with some clients it takes a bit of 'educating' them about how digital works. I've had more than one that had me just go shoot it on film. Fine with me. At the end of the day it's imperative that you make just as much as you were making on film jobs. If you can charge more and get away with it then go for it. Several clients have spent more than the amount of the job on just burning dupe CD's of the images. Where as I marked up film I now mark up CD's and charge for burn time. Hope this helps somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now