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

<p>That is what has to countered if one is to position themselves as offering something different with an attendant different result Robert. </p>

<p>In almost every other product category, part of exclusivity is patience. People get things custom made all the time, and they do not expect it to be done immediately ... in fact it's quite the opposite. </p>

<p>Even with digital, my wife made the point that delivering a load of digital images overnight seemed to diminish their value. Like it was all automatic and easy ... which we all know it is not if you really care what the images look like. So, even though I may finish processing files in a few days, I do not deliver them immediately anymore. Not one client has objected or offered a sense of impatience because I've done this, and it has taken the pressure off me to crash through all the files and serve up the photographic fast food at Mc Donald's speed.</p>

<p>If clients want fast food photography, send them to a Mc Donald's Photographer ... they are on every corner slugging it out for the low cost business. If they want a fine dining experience, be a chef with delicious offerings that the client may have to wait for to come from the kitchen : -) </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The expectation of many tech-savvy, young brides and grooms is that there will be in their hands a DVD with 1500 to 2000 images for their perusal & for album selection, the minute they return from their honeymoon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there is a market for an old fashioned style service of an album with up to 100 images with relatives being able to order reprints from it. I really can't see the point in having 1500 to 2000 images.</p>

<p>I'm not going to test this theory though!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The expectation of many tech-savvy, young brides and grooms is that there will be in their hands a DVD with 1500 to 2000 images for their perusal & for album selection, the minute they return from their honeymoon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Expectations are there to be managed. For which reason, my clients expect no more than 350-450 images a month after the wedding. By the time they get back from honeymoon they've already seen hundreds of wedding images from friends and guests - most of them blogged the day after the wedding - and many of them very poor quality. There's no skill in shooting by numbers and burning a DVD of unedited images. Anyone can do that. Which is something my clients understand, and why they don't want it.</p>

<p>Hence there's a degree of anticipation and pleasure in awaiting something more substantial that takes a few weeks to put together. Like any other quality product, a set of beautifully edited and finished images requires time to produce. And I've never met a bride who regretted waiting. But I'm willing to bet there are quite a few who have regretted going fast and cheap.</p>

<p>In the end it doesn't matter what your product is - everything can be marketed, if priced and positioned correctly. So the only thing to do is decide what kind of product and client works for you.</p>

<p>I have found that film performs much better in certain instances such as night photography where very long exposure times are required. The digital sensors just get too hot and start producing digital noise on your shot. For a professional photographer where your income is on the line digital is certainly cheaper and easier. However for serious art work where quality is everything digital can't hold a candle to a good medium format camera and a roll of Velvia 50. I personally enjoy night photography and use mostly film. It is a bit of a pain to scan negatives to share things digitally but there is nothing like a good 16x20 print from a good negative. True film guys develop there own film. I will say that it is getting harder to purchase color chemistry in small quantities these days. Kodak has phased out all of their small quanitity packaging for C-41 and E6. B&W chemistry I can still find on the shelf at most local photo stores. Bottom line is you use the right tool for the job at hand. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1769024">David Schilling - Chicago, Illinois</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 25, 2009; 07:57 p.m.<br>

I suspect that 5-10 years from now that we'll look back on this discussion and smile......</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, people were saying that 5+ years ago and here we are.....people still using film and enjoying it. I think this will be the case another 5 to 10 years from now.</p>

<p>I reckon there will always be a market for film, especially black and white. I feel black and white film is already a niche, and as such won't decline much more.<br>

The market for colour film is going to decline even more, and it will probably end up being a serious amateur/professional thing, for films like Fuji Velvia.</p>

<p>As a total novice it would seem to me that if you want to start out shooting weddings using entirely film, you shouldn't. You should instead establish yourself with digital(because it is cheaper to get good with digital), and gradually incorporate various sizes of film as you get better, and perhaps by the end of it you could shoot film alone.<br>

And you never know, you might discover you don't like shooting film at weddings, so there isn't much risk.</p>

<p>Can I ask of the participants here, how much would you expect to charge for a wedding where there was a church ceremony at say 5pm, followed by a reception from 7-12am, and to produce say 50 final images from which the b & g can choose say 10 keepers to do 10x8 prints?<br>

I know what a pro photographer here would charge. I'd just like to get a feel for what one could earn over there.</p>

<p>Stephen--please flesh out your question. We don't know whether you are talking about shooting film or digital or both, and how the prints are to made, if from film. You also have no details about what kind of coverage is expected, and where 'over there' is. Where are you? And how does this relate to the topic?</p>

<p>Stephen is here in Australia, and I assume he is talking about North America. I don't see why film or digital would matter, as costs are similar by the time you take into account the need to upgrade a digicam every 2-3 years.</p>

<p>Perhaps we are all taking this off track from the original question and are getting too general. </p>

<p>From what I understand, VAL hasn't shot a wedding yet. So I'll say it again ... not everyone likes shooting weddings once they've tried it. So, why council someone to undertake the expense of going digital when they already have the film gear? It maybe that portrait work will be his bag, or something else photographic.</p>

<p>Were I VAL, I'd try it and see where it leads. If digital is the better answer, it'll become clear pretty quickly. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tom--film or digital matters because Stephen seems to be asking about charging for a particular job, where factors such has upgrading a digicam every 2 or 3 years do not come into direct play. Indirect--maybe, <strong>if</strong> you believe you need to upgrade every 2 or 3 years. Also, out of pocket expenses for a particular job are different for film and digital. Whether to account for time spent post processing is not a clear cut issue, particularly since some photographers do and some don't, even digital photographers.</p>

<p>Anyway, I was in my semi-moderating role in asking for the question clarification as well as relevance to the OP's question.</p>

<p>This thread has strayed, here and there, from helping VAL figure out film's role for him to bordering on a classic film/digital debate. I want to remind everyone to stay close to the questions the OP has asked, which is about film's role in the wedding photography business--specifically the OP's possible wedding photography business.</p>

<p>As a non-moderator, I want to comment on the medium format, film aspect of the OP's questions, which has taken a back seat to 35mm film. While I believe a film only business will be difficult for a newcomer to establish and grow, for reasons given above, I think either a medium format film specialty or a black and white film specialty, or both, can be an advantage to the newcomer. Immediately, he or she is offering something not every newcomer can offer. Plus, the specialty offering can be kept separate from the regular offering, with it's own set of pricing, which would be easy for the client to accept. The people who value film will accept the costs, and the ones who don't, can still be serviced the 'regular' way, and one can still grow one's business the 'regular' way.</p>

<p>I used to photograph entire weddings with medium format, as recently as 2004-2005--even photojournalistic images. Still, it would make sense to use medium format (as a specialty product) where it shines--the more formal portraits and family groups.</p>

<p>Also, having said that, if VAL was not looking to jump into the business with both feet, he can offer film (in whatever form) at appropriate pricing, not caring whether his film business puts food on the table. It may grow very slowly, but if he sticks to it, it could take and grow.</p>

<p>And, as Marc said above, it seems that VAL has several options, given that he looks to be starting off as the specialty product producer for another photographer. That's a pretty safe way to learn the ropes (both film and digital and in general) and find his way in the field.</p>

<p>As for 15-20 years from now, I would not venture a guess. Whatever the future brings, if you love film, it doesn't matter what will happen. If you love it that much, you will find a way to keep it in your life--profit or not, so you might as well start now.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>It's Val. I'm just checking in. I made it about halfway through the thread so far. Whew! Do I get an award?</p>

<p>I see lots of good comments. A few maybe not so good ones (imho). And a few of the usual entertaining wise-guy comments (thanks!).</p>

<p>I'm seeing a common trend here among everyone, which is a good thing: image content and quality matter more than anything else. No kidding, huh? At the end of the day, for the average photographer/client, it's not going to matter how the images were made, as long as they are made and look good.</p>

<p>Now putting all that aside for a moment: This thread panned out similarly to how I would have guessed it would have. Most of you once used film, but have since moved on to fully or nearly fully digital coverage to keep up with the photographic equivalent of the Jones'. That's all well and good, especially when it works for your photographs, for you, your clients, and it makes the money you need to make.</p>

<p>It's ok that this thread has strayed a bit: that's unavoidable. I enjoyed reading the various takes on the profitability of all-film coverage (even though that's not what I originally asked about). The consensus here (and I would agree) is that unless you're doing very high-profile, high-cost assignments, it ain't gonna work. That's fine. Things change over time. Digital may be one of the best things that has ever happened to photography. It may also be one of the worst. It depends how you look at it. Glass half full? Or half empty? Personally, I'd say that the glass was built in such a way that it has double the space necessary for the volume of fluid it contains. In other words, I'm trying my best to approach this thread from an objective viewpoint.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Speaking of different glasses with varying degrees of fill ...</p>

<p>This might be of interest as a hybrid notion ... Traditional B&W fiber based silver Prints made from digital files ... perhaps for that higher-end archival exclusivity? Meaning that VAL could start with film and migrate to digital without sacrificing the end product being a beautiful true silver print.</p>

<p>www.digitalsilverimaging.com</p>

<p>Sometimes I shoot some wedding shots with a 39 meg medium format commercial camera ... I think I may try these guys and see what the silver prints look like : -)</p>

<p>Film is not dead yet. But it's dying. In the future, maybe sooner rather than later, film will be supplied by manufacturers interested in a niche market. I've got a few film cameras but it's not part of my workflow anymore for my business.</p>

<p>Take a look at the numbers on Kodak. I receive Value line and this is in issue #1.</p>

<p>Sales (in millions $) for the year ending:<br /> 2006: 13274 <br /> 2007: 10301<br /> 2008: 9416<br /> 2009 estimate: 7300<br /> 2010: estimate: 7125</p>

<p>Earnings per Share for year end:<br /> 2006: $.51<br /> 2007: $.91<br /> 2008: $ -$.38<br /> 2009: est: $-1.30<br /> 2010: est: $-.50<br /> Sales in the 1st qtr. 2009 were off 29% compared to the same period in 2008.<br /> They are trying to contain costs and preserve cash. It's hard when the sky is falling all around them and may not ever return. <br /> Sorry to give this information to you. The market has shifted whether we like it or not.<br /> Where does that leave us who like to use film? Buy from those who still support it. <br /> I agree with Aimee's comments. For us running a business, do our clients know, see, care about any differences? Each of us can answer that depending who are clients are that buy from us.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nothing new here.</p>

<p>Kodak isn't alone. Fuji film operations are hurting also.</p>

<p>The era of mass consumer film production is coming to a close due to the proliferation of inexpensive digital cameras ... with a growing penetration of inexpensive P&Ss into emerging markets that previously helped shore up mass consumer film sales.</p>

<p>What I see happening is the elimination of mass consumer level film production, and a migration of film to a more specialized category of photography catering to a more exclusive process and end result. </p>

<p>I would agree that film use will become a less viable choice for weddings IF a photographer attempts to market with-in the prevailing digital capture business models.</p>

<p>So, in that respect, with the average client, Aimee is correct ... they won't be able to tell the difference and are more concerned with "what", not "how".</p>

<p>What I do not agree with is that "How" cannot become a Unique Selling Point targeted at those who desire to be separated from the pack. Luxury items ALWAYS sell because there is always someone that wants them. What is nice about selling to those desiring more exclusive products is ... they are the ones with the money ... LOL! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>i shoot nothing but film and recently it seems to have gotten the attention of some folks. weddings were never my gig but a friend of a friend wanted.. no, demanded that i shoot theirs and it the ball has rolled from there. it seems some folks just want it.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>