Is there still a place for film now and in the future?

<p>I'm a student of a photographer who has used film for eons, and I've learned to appreciate it over the years. I've also got a buddy doing wedding photography, but he's all digital. He knows I want to learn wedding photography, so he's considering adding film coverage into some of his packages. I would be the film guy with the 645.</p>

<p>Is there a place for MF film coverage today? How about 35mm? Are photos simply photos no matter the capture method used? How about 15-20 years from now--any chance?</p>

<p>There is a place for medium format film coverage if you <strong>make</strong> a place for it. Same with 35mm. There are still some photographers successfully using film. Jose Villa is one and Jonathan Canless.</p>

<p>While photos are photos no matter the capture, you will have to be smart about how you construct your product/package and how you market. Since shooting film involves more raw expenses in the way of material, processing and scanning (if you convert to digital), you will have to, for instance, figure out a way to counter the fact that digital (on the surface) has no similar costs. In other words, to make the fact that you use film transparent to the client, you have to have the style and talent to rise above talk about cost and numbers.</p>

<p>In addition, there are fewer and fewer labs today that know how to handle film well. That will be an increasing problem in the years to come.</p>

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>Thanks. I have heard of Villa. He uses a Contax 645. But the name Canless is a new one to me. I'll have to look him up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, to make the fact that you use film transparent to the client, you have to have the style and talent to rise above talk about cost and numbers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if the average client would know (or care if educated) about the differences between digital and film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In addition, there are fewer and fewer labs today that know how to handle film well. That will be an increasing problem in the years to come.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You bet that's a problem. I wonder if it's a good idea to develop the black and white myself? I know how to do it and have developed probably close to 100 rolls.</p>

<p>Oh, a final thing: we don't have to include the negatives, right?</p>

<p>I thought Jose Villa also uses 35mm, but I could be wrong. I do think the average client is fairly canny about film and digital, and younger people in particular, know about digital. They will be surprised if you tell them, for instance, that you will give them 500 images instead of 1500.</p>

<p>If you have the stomach for developing a lot of B&W film to order, more power to you. Me--I wouldn't do it. Darkroom work was my least favorite thing.</p>

<p>I may have spelled Jonathan's name wrong. May be Canlas?</p>

<p><em>" How about 15-20 years from now--any chance?"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I doubt it. My guess is that people will have to special order film within the next 5 years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt it. My guess is that people will have to special order film within the next 5 years.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We already do. That's what B&H, Adorama, etc are for!</p>

<p>Do you have to include the negatives? Past practice has been to hold the negatives on the expectation (faint hopes?) that here would be a later ordering of reprints, etc. Whether that's reasonable these days is open to question. Also, having the negs greatly reduced the ease of second and third party copying and printing. Retaining the negative would suggest that one should have a filing system capable of retrieving the files and also protecting them. Negs need protection from heat and moisture in the event of fires, of course, and most people didn't have a duplicate. With digital, multiple "originals" and remote and duplicate files should be safer, etc.</p>

<p>By delivering the negs, many assume that delivers copyright - two different actions but still, if you pass on the negs, you've lost control.</p>

<p>These days there is more and more dependence on digital viewing and sharing and less and less downstream printing so the business aspects of retaining the negs may change. Especially if printing/album practices result in getting digital copies anyways.</p>

<p>The other day I tried to buy some blank VHS tapes from Walgreens......they no longer stock them. When Walgreens and Walmart discontinue selling film, film becomes history. The handwritting is on the wall.</p>

<p>Well, it's getting more and more dismal. I personally think black and white will stay around from companies like Ilford as long as there is a decent market. It is self sufficient, do it yourself, and has some educational and artistic use as well as professional. Fuji and Kodak, who knows where they'll go if and when color gets pulled. Maybe they'll hang in for just black and white but I don't think there will be a market for color 15 years from now. No question negs are a big pain, I have many thousands of them, I want to just put them out to the trash, but I can't yet in good conscience. Digital is so much easier to manage. But black and white is so special, it has it's own place in photography and hopefully companies like Ilford, and maybe the big two, will keep it alive as long as possible.</p>

<p>I think this has to be thought through carefully.</p>

<p>As Nadine said, there is a place for it if you make one. It is a matter of marketing.</p>

<p>One aspect to leverage may be "Exclusivity". This can help turn what appears to be a disadvanage into an advantage ... which is a classic marketing strategy. Some people are always looking for something exclusive. "Exclusive" has a connotation of few, not many. So properly positioned to the right target, a smaller amount of high quality analog images may be the counter point to a flood of digital images. I liked how Jeff Ascough sells the idea of providing 200 or so images against 2000 as discussed in his interview here on Photo.net. I agree with him completely. </p>

<p>The other leverage may be appealing to the archival nature of film. We know for sure that film and silver prints last, we don't know for sure that digital will. I have a wedding photos of my Great Grand Father, I always wonder how many of my digital client's Great Grand Children will have their's?</p>

<p>Film may be relagated to a nitch position, but it'll be there in some form for a long time. Especially B&W. There are still plenty of good labs around, and the weeding out of the weak ones has helped keep them in business. Films of all kinds are available through www.freestyle.com including some very silver rich B&W films being made in Europe ... as well as most of the major photo mail houses.</p>

<p>As far as costs are concerned, who says you have to be competitive with digital? If you successfully market the "Exclusive" notion and process archivally, and do less images, it shouldn't be that big of an issue. I used to shoot about 15-20 rolls of 35mm film per average wedding (500 to 700 frames), Film and processing to proofs for that many rolls today is $500. tops. Prints from film or digital cost the same. So if you consider how much time you spend processing digital images to the same level of quality, and have them proofed, many of us are doing the digital processing for slave wages.</p>

<p>If you shot film, think of all the stuff you wouldn't need. </p>

<p>Click on my name here and go to my Photo.net wedding gallery. A ton of the shots were done on film ... 35mm, 645 and 6X6. They are my favorite wedding pictures. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>Thank you for the comprehensive and thoughtful response.</p>

<p>As an aside, I really enjoyed looking at your photographs. Never before have I looked at someone's work and immediately felt like I was there. Your sense of timing and composition, as well as choice of photographic medium, appears to be so similar to my own past creative decisions, that your pictures just made instant sense to me. Your words made a lot of sense as well; I have been thinking along similar lines. I went to add you to my list of interesting people, and was startled to find there was no link to do so. Then it dawned on me: I had already added you months ago!</p>

 

<p >I agree there is a place if you make one and it does have to be thought through carefully.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I used, up to a while ago, 645 film (colour and B&W - mainly colour) and digital. Read my bio, and research older threads.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In a nutshell, if I were beginning from scratch, I would make a niche.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But, that niche must be able to be fully controlled - and there are fewer Colour Labs and staff knowledgeable about film. and as scanning doesn't interest me, I would be considering a B&W niche.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the kind words VAL. </p>

<p>Depending on where you are located, Dale labs in Hollywood Florida is a good lab to investigate. I talked with Dale at some length and he is passionate about color and B&W and really runs a tight ship for film works. Really old school when it comes to quality processing. They do everything from all film manufacturers in all film sizes, even E6 processing. After talking with him you feel like thowning your digital camera in the trash... but I didn't... LOL !</p>

<p>They have mailers ... just call (800) 327-1776 for a supply. </p>

<p>B&H sells mailers for a lab in California. I've used it for film processing and contact sheets (I scan film on a Imacon 949 so I don't get proofs). They did a great job also. </p>

<p>Here's a tip, when sending mailers in put them all in one box and ship together. The Post Office isn't the best at getting individual mailers to their destination.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>Yeah, we're definitely on the same page when it comes to this stuff:</p>

<p>I use mailers for E6, and have used A&I in the past for some personal film. And yes, I put a bunch of mailers into one box!</p>

<p>I actually used Dale Labs once for some personal film. I had no idea they were pro oriented; I just assumed they were a lab that catered mainly to consumers/enthusiasts and was holding on by their fingernails in the declining market. I don't know why I thought that.</p>

<p>William,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In a nutshell, if I were beginning from scratch, I would make a niche.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>But, that niche must be able to be fully controlled - and there are fewer Colour Labs and staff knowledgeable about film. and as scanning doesn't interest me, I would be considering a B&W niche.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bingo!</p>

<p>I have many years of experience with film but I do everything digitally now......I can think of no area where film offers a real advantage...regards, Bob</p>

<p>for B&W - for sure!:)</p>

<p>"I have many years of experience with film but I do everything digitally now......I can think of no area where film offers a real advantage ... "</p>

<p>I don't think this is necessarily a "Film verses Digital" debate Bob. That's been hashed out to death. </p>

<p>VAL already expressed an interest in film work and subjectively has a preference for it. So, the question is whether it has a place for wedding coverage? If he decides to pursue that approach, he will be in the minority of wedding shooters, but most certainly not alone.</p>

<p>IMO, IF VAL can successfully market the idea of film, especially B&W (including true analog silver print enlargements), he will be doing the type work he wishes to do, and providing the clients with a somewhat exclusive product that's beautiful to the eye, and is proven to be archival.</p>

<p>My question would whether one could get enough of this type wedding work to make a living? If it were a suppliment to other areas of film based photography like portraits and art prints, it might work. </p>

<p><br /></p>

<p><em>"My question would whether one could get enough of this type wedding work to make a living? If it were a supplement to other areas of film based photography like portraits and art prints, it might work." -Marc</em></p>

<p> Now there's the central question. If it could work for VAL, then it could likely work for Marc, why not you give it a go Marc? I agree the "film -vs.- digital" debate has "been hashed out to death" but this appears to be a specific marketing strategy, perhaps you're on to something.</p>

<p>Well, all I can say is it works for me.</p>

<p>I've been shooting a hybrid mix of film and digital over the last couple of years, and have recently ratcheted the film proportion right up. This w/e I shot only a single CF card - everything else was film.</p>

<p>If you price your work (and your time) correctly then there's no concept of either film or digital being more expensive than the other. My internal price for post production time works out about the same as my lab, scan and film costs, as I always build in a charge for my post time. But the big economic difference is in time saved - around two hours to edit a film wedding, versus two or three days for digital. And of course the big aesthetic difference is film itself.</p>

<p>I think it's harder to shoot film for low cost weddings as there are certain fixed costs in using quality labs, and these prevent offering discount rates. But if you can build a mid- to high-end client base then working with film is simple and affordable.</p>

<p>I've also found that being explicit about using film has been helpful in attracting a different kind of client - ones more interested in art, and less interested in the number of images.</p>

<p>When I used to shoot film, my professional lab was CPQ (cpq.com), which specializes in weddings and portraits. They still process film, but a 12-exposure roll of 120 with proofs is about $11. Through in the cost of a roll of Kodak Portra and you're looking at about $1.25 every time you click the shutter. At that rate, the cost for film and processing for a single wedding is enough to cover the cost of a low-end digital body. If you're one of those people who shoot 1500 frames at a wedding, you can get a very good digital body for the cost of film and processing. Making a living at shooting weddings is more a question of business than art, so I don't think 35mm or MF film is economically viable in mainstream commercial wedding photography beyond a niche market. As far as selling customers on film, the average bride and groom are in their 20s, so that means they've been raised on digital pictures, iTunes music, DVDs, etc. It's really none of the customer's business what kind of camera you use any more than the baker should explain what kind of oven he uses, but digital is what they expect. There might be a few people you could sell on the quality and archival aspects of film, but I seriously doubt that the number is enough to make a living off of. I would say the biggest argument for shooting film is if it suits your own preferences -- if you've already got all the film gear and don't want to make the investment in digital, and you're comfortable shooting film and don't want to learn digital. But for somebody young and on the way up I would invest my time in learning the technology of the future, not the past. As for your question about giving customers the negatives, no you don't have to do that. I am personally very against that. Aside from the issue of future sales, the negatives are the originals of what, over time, becomes the collection of your life's work. Most of the images you shoot at a wedding photographer are probably of little interest beyond the families involved, but it's your work and you should be proud enough of it to want to keep it. And there are many stories over the years of a local portrait photographer from this town or that neighborhood whose collection of negatives has ended up in a museum or art gallery because it's a portrait of a particular community at a particular point in time. Give them CDs with scans if you like, give them prints, but never give up your negatives.</p>

<p>Let's not get into a discussion about film vs. digital as that's not really practical. Obtaining film and having it processed and printed will be the issue here. If the lab that processes the film will scan it and print it digitally, why go through the expense of film and worry about keeping it cool and fresh?<br>

The bottom line is that your customer doesn't really care HOW you create their images, only what they look like. Does it matter if you get a new roof on your home and it's hammered and nailed or secured with staples?<br>

I attempted a film/digital combination at first and keeping everything categorized was a nightmare.<br>

You can market anything successfully, I just don't know how practical it is....-Aimee</p>

<p>Kodak had a meeting with some photographers about film. Josh Root was one and Daniel Bayer was another. Seems they're exploring so it doesn't seem like film is dead yet.</p>

<p>Anyone know where I can buy some " crop cards ". Anyone remember what they are ?</p>

<p>Bill--I always got them from the lab I was going to use to print the images. Different labs label the crops differently, so I wouldn't think one set of cards could be used at any old lab.</p>

<p>"We already do. That's what B&H, Adorama, etc are for!"<br>

Never had to special order film. My local camera store sells film from Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. Including some 4x5.</p>