Why should you shoot film ? : a POV from a digital maven.

I thought it would be nice to avoid hi-jacking other threads to discuss the topic of film

verses digital, and let everyone air their opinion in one place. It is a very important subject

for many on the cusp of change... or wondering if or when they should consider digital.

 

I do hope Al, Kevin, Nadine, C JO and others (hopefully like Jeff

Ascough) chip in to support a few important points here (Steve also if he wants).

 

Contrary to what some may believe, I do not think anyone should abandon film as a

medium. Nor do I think they should avoid digital for just about any of the reasons usually

given by film zealots. These days either medium of expression can stand alone... but as a

team, film and digital provide a wonderful spectrum of choice and beauty, flexibility and

scope, spontaneity and control. Great film cameras have become so affordable, that there

is little reason to not have one as a back up to digital, or visa versa depending on your

leanings.

 

 

RELATED SUB STORY:

I just returned from NYC where I was supervising a major advertising campaign shoot for a

national client. This will be a very visible print campaign that all US forum members will

see unless they live as a recluse. Let's just say that the NY photographer I hired is at the

top of the food chain, and gets more per single image than I can make in a month of

shooting weddings. He shot all film. A LOT of film. I wanted it that way also. If he were

ever to go digital, film makers would weep. And he is headed that way. But not to the

exclusion of film. I had many lengthy discussions with him during the week. I also talked

with his tech guys a lot.

 

The photographer showed me a lot of new work he is developing. It was all digital. He

explained that once he dropped his prejudices whole new creative avenues opened up to

him. In no way did it alter his views of film work, it just widened his scope and vision. It

never occurred to him that it was a matter of one or the other.

 

I had the good fortune to have him review my work. He didn't care at all which photograph

was shot with what medium. He was interested in the images, not how they were captured.

As a result of these reviews and subsequent discussions he is going to mentor me on

applying my work to wider venues than weddings... and wants me to consider a book ...for

which he has connections, (man am I pumped ; -)

 

BTW, his advice in terms of equipment had little to do with film or digital bodies, but

instead focused mostly on acquiring the best glass possible. And best did not mean the

most expensive. As Al knows, some less expensive older lenses produce a distinctive look

and feel that can be more desirable than some razor sharp computer generated modern

glass with less "soul".

 

Sub story aside, what are your thoughts on the film/digital team notion?

Digital is CHEAP. I did 14 model tests this month all with digital, didn't spend any money on scanning and etc. I did a cover shot on Wednsday and the mag got it today morning ready - it is FAST.

But to be sincere I LOVE the look and feel of pushed 67 negative and if someone pays or takes care I still prefer negative...

Hey - did you mention the name of the photog?

One point that should be made up front is that commercial photography is much different than wedding photography in terms of clients and billing structure, so one has to be careful about using one in the context of the other. Creative directors/ADs are a world apart from the average knottie bride. You may not market to the average knottie bride, but an awful lot of wedding photographers do. The fact that commercial shooters do itemized billing for their creative fee plus all other expenses does things like make the costs and profits of film vs. digital go away.

 

My views on your original question: I really like classic, MF SLRs, because of their smaller size and better viewfinders, and use them for getting ready and some ceremony shots. And yes, I have a Nikkor 105/2.5 (with its own particular look) that I use. For the rest of the coverage I use F100s, and anything I do with them would be just as well done with a DSLR.

 

I will probably be adding in digital next year because:

 

1) Most of my shooting is done for other photographers as a second or associate shooter, most photographers I work with have gone digital and would rather get a CD than a bag of film.

 

2) The work flow and quality with digital is easier to control and less hassel. There are no pro labs here in Brooklyn; there are loads of pro labs in Manhattan, and some good ones on Long Island, but for the amount of travel time involved to get to them I might as well live in Iowa and mail my film off.

 

3) You can experiment with new and differnt looks and techniques (in camera, not PS), and see what you're doing in the fraction of the time that you can with film. (I'm not about to shoot Polaroids on a wedding shoot.)

 

 

In my personal opinion, in 5 years about the only wedding photographers still using film will be a few old timers, entry level bottom feeders and high end niche photographers. We are entering the era where there will be photographers who have never shot film.

Here's a cut and paste from a conversation I had with Al last night:

 

>>I'm not sure I'll turn into a digital freak, but I do think that I'll benefit in some ways, especially as a learning tool. I've easily spent $2000 in processing of test shots alone this year...test rolls of unusable crap, mostly with my husband wearing tank tops and curly chest and arm pit hair poking out. That's very annoying to me, because I'm cheap. I also know I would benefit from constant usage and experimentation, instead of holding back to save $ and then wasting the little time I do have at the lab. Many of the folks in that forum post admitted to using both formats, that's more my style. Besides I truly want to develop my own prints...basically I want to do it all. I'm a perfectionist and an over-achiever--I'm sure there's a 12-step program for that somewhere. Now if I had Leica gear...hmmm...

 

The archival issues are huge to me and sound like a giant pain in the ass, that's always made me unsure of digital. I doubt I would do my own printing at all due to the fading issues. But, I will enjoy sending files that are right to my terms w/o all the hassle of reorders and trying to tell someone else what I want or need. The 10d is going to be really cheap soon, that's kinda what I'm looking at. Something I can play around with til they really make a mark w/ digital. Test it in digital, shoot it on film are my thoughts. Kinda like a polaroid, the polaroid back for my EOS-3 is the same price as the 10D is used.<<

 

Although, now I'm reading more about the 20D and that seems to really have it going on. I know they've made a giant mark in digital, but some things do worry me, do you ever worry about how long these images will last? I have no plans of going completely digital...of course, I say that now...I was actually thinking how fun it would be to, at a wedding, cross process in my trusty Rebel, infrared in my Mamiya, B&W in the 3, and then use the digital too. ;-)

I agree that the glass can make a lot of difference. After all- it's the second eye in the

whole equation- and it's the only eye that shapes the light in the printed image. There's

always someone who is hasty to silence the talk of equipment on this board- but they are

the tools of our trade.

 

I personally find it very difficult to part with my 35mm OM10 and its beautiful and "soulful"

original 50 mm f1.8 lens. This camera + lens produce images that never fail me and

everyone who sees their image made through this lens falls in love with an image of

theirself when they never thought it would be possible (speaking of those people who hate

to look at themselves in photographs). I use both digital and film and I like both of them

for different reasons. Digital can be very flattering to skin tones by not making too much

distinction between very slight color variances and it provides instant feedback. And yet, I

love my 1.8 in low light situations and the freedom it gives me when shooting available

light. I think the film/digital combination is great for backup reasons- what one camera

may fail at, the other won't.

 

A man who hates images of himself- but loved what the OM10 f1.8 saw... (not a wedding)<div></div>

<I>He didn't care at all which photograph was shot with what medium. He was interested in the images, not how they were captured</i><P>Boy, you'd have a hard time getting the anti-digital crowd, and especially the Leica forum here to swallow that one. <P>True Professional photographers are by definition a group of people that are more likely to make a practiced transition to one medium vs the other vs cold turkey. Or, they'll choose their equipment based on the final goal desired because they lack the hobbiest's emotional attraction to a specific type/brand of equipment/film. I know very good wedding/portrait shooters that still stick to print film because their workflow and technique demands more lattitude, and I know others that are full digital. Both are correct.<P>In any respect, this is preaching to the choir. It's the anti-digital crowd that is obsessed with goings on in the digital realm, not vice-versa, aka; <i>It never occurred to him that it was a matter of one or the other. </i><P> Also, unlike the individual who is the subject of your review, the majority of anti-digital opinions are from rank amatuers unable to produce a sharp and color correct image in the first place, so can be we please skip the attempts at moral equivalency? Interesting post otherwise, but it's still preaching to the choir.

Marc, congrats on finding a mentor and a possible book deal. Put me down for a signed copy.

 

I think digital scanning and printing might give new life to film. I just recently purchased an HP 7960 to do digital B&W prints. I never was a great wet printer, and digital printing of scanned negs is giving me a lot of the benefits of a pure digital workflow; repeatability, increased control, no need for a darkroom. I still get to use the manual cameras that I am comfortable with, and I still get the archivability of film. I'll eventually add a digital camera (probably a D70 and some fast primes), but right now I'm enjoying film enough that I'm thinking of getting a second scanner to allow faster scanning, and I might just forgo the D70 for the sake of an M6 and a Summilux.

Thanks, Marc. Today is the Big Day for shooting that little wedding. Remember the girl that posted, asking for somebody in Miami who'd be willing to shoot her wedding? It turned out to be rainy so far, but I'm hoping it'll clear a bit by 2 P.M. because we're supposed to be outside in Fairchild Tropical Gardens for a 2 P.M. ceremony! A perfect excuse to stick the 1950's vintage 85mm f/2 Nikkor on my Leica M3 body for some really out of focus backgrounds. I'll also be using a 35/2 second generation Summicron from about 1970 and a 50/2 'cron of the same vintage. I'm not sure I'll need or use either, but I'll also have my 21/3.4 Super Angulon and my 15/4.5 Voigtlander Skopar.

 

The entire wedding party including me and the guests will be "about a dozen people" so I'm tempted to do a few shots (I've done this before!) with the 15 held at arms length and pointed back towards me and a few other people so I can be in a few of the shots. The 15 has a more modern look in the photos than my older glass but there's no other choice here.

 

Truth is, Marc, I'm just so overwhelmed by the choices of color negative film available these days that it seems you could spend half your time just testing them all. It's not like when you had to choose between ASA 64 Kodacolor-X and ASA 80 CPS, a lower contrast film for weddings and portraits. Yup, that was the ONLY choice at the photo store.

 

Those older lenses also have a bit less contrast than modern glass. Leica lenses, noted for the "Leica Glow", have good micro-contrast so fine detail is clearly resolved at the expense of over all contrast. Will this come through when we finally get digital bodies? Will it matter anyway, because modern Leica glass doesn't seem to feature this property as much as the older glass?

 

I suppose I'll end up getting a digital Bessa and possibly a digital M body at some point. I'm 3 weeks shy of turning 62 and frankly the thought of learning all that technical stuff has little appeal. What I know I know inside out and backwards. My cameras are an extension of my hands and my brain. I don't think when I pick up my Leicas, any more than I think when I eat dinner. I just do it. Frankly, I think my time now is better spent doing some shooting and in the darkroom printing up all those on and back stage photos I have of the likes of Bob Dylan and Janis Joplin and other rock stars, as well as Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and a host of others. Many photos go back to when they were young unknowns like Attorney General Janet Reno in her mid 20's, barely out of law school.

 

So that's my point I suppose. I still have all those negatives. FILM!

Forty odd years later it's still producing income. Those images are still accessable. It's still really easy to go through the bioxes of contact sheets. Pretty much the same Leicas and lenses that shot those pix are still cranking out images. The stuff is long ago paid for. Of course I don't get much depreciation write-off on my taxes these days...LOL

 

Vanessa and George will be saying their vows in 4 hours, and I'll be shooting film. Maybe if I was 25 I'd look at things in another way.

Marc thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience with us. I always search out your theards since they offer great wisdom and have helped me a great deal.

 

My Story started with not being happy with my own wedding photos. Then with the encouragement of my wife I started on the course of becoming pro. At this point I had to decide between digital and film since I didn't yet have a large investment in any system. I had enough funs that I could have jumped into digital with a kit lense, but that's it. At this point I decided it was much more important to get good glass. So I took the money and bought film cameras with fast primes. I am so glad I did this. The glass is such an important aspect. Great glass on a crapy body can still produce great images. Crapy glass will always produce crapy images.

 

Talking about glass that has a soul ... just the other day I picked up an 105 f2.5 AI Nikon lens ... that lens is great ... the bokeh is so wonderful. See the attached photo.

 

All of this to say that I think it is important to look at digital and film as different ways to the same result (most of the people that contact me want physical 4x6 proofs). I will of course one day add digital to my equipment list, but I think it will be a long time before it replaces my film cameras completely. So, yes I think the two can coexist very happily.<div></div>

For me, the primary reason to continue shooting film is about optics and their

effect. Overall image quality, i.e., resolution and color quality, isn't an issue.

For example, if I were to photograph the same the same setup with a 360mm

lens on 8x10 @ F16 or 22 for selective focus, and also a Fuji 680 with

100mm lens @ F4 or 5.6, using a 37x37mm chip in the capture device, both

setups will produce excellent results but the look will be different. Particularly

the way that the resultant images transition from sharp to OOF and the feeling

of depth in the image. This is one example at one end of the spectrum but I

think that the principle applys across the board to all formats, with the gap

being tightest in the 35mm realm. And when you start introducing vintage

glass that will only work well, or at all with film then the variables are really

compounded. There's still a lot of film being shot for ad work but in all honesty

I think that its more of a conceit about the limitations of digital capture quality

than a reality. For the basic shot that only needs to be clear and sharp, there's

no reason to not capture. But when you look at the work of Avedon shot on

8x10 with a Widefield Ektar, or Raymond Meeks shot with a Graflex C and an

ancient Cooke lens, there's a signature that can't be duplicated. In regard to

the concerns of this forum, is the excellent Leica M work done on film

duplicated by digital capture? I think that they're both good but different to be

sure. I view the difference as different tools, for different looks for different

applications and not better or worse.

RE: Glass... I have a nikon to EOS adapter, so I can mount my 85mm F1.8 non-AI and my nice old 105 on my EOS 20D. Like many people, I'm just out for the look I want, not the brand.

 

RE: Why shoot film for a wedding: Exposure latitude for flash candids! If you're using direct flash, DSLR's tend to require more flash compensation, maybe not possible in a hurry.... but the digital's ability to manually white-balance your bounce flash off of an off-white wall or roof is very nice... so I shoot both.

I propose that the photo critique forum eliminate any mention of what equipment was used...not entirely. Perhaps the f stop

and/or aperture used, focal length of the lens but eliminate any mention of either film or digital. Would be interesting how people would rate these photos, if there would be any change.

I'm a recent joiner into the digital crowd, so I don't think I'm a zealot either way. Hopefully other people thinking of making the transition can benefit from some of my "blundering revelations":

 

<p><b>What surprised me about digital (pro):

 

<ul><li>The immediate feedback of the LCD/histogram + "unlimited" shots via a digital card</b> - These two are a truly liberating experience. Not only do I have more assurance of the shots I've taken, I am way more experimental and willing to try stuff I would've never attempted with film. As a result, the creative side of my photography has gone up.

 

<li><b>White balance/ISO adjustments on the fly</b> - What a great feeling to shoot indoors with incadescent lighting and not worry about color casting or filters or different film. Also, not having to switch bodies or film every time you switch from bright to dark settings. The number of color shots I take indoors without flash has gone up dramatically.

 

<li><b>Image quality</b> - At low ISO's, the image quality of digital has astounded me. Other than a few exceptions, I prefer the digital images I have taken in color than most of the film ones I've been taking.

 

<li><b>Ability to post-process like in a darkroom</b> - I haven't had the time or inclination to get into my darkroom for months now, and the lab sure isn't stopping at every one of my prints and dodging/burning to get the desired effect. It's a real pleasure to be able to get darkroom results without getting into the darkroom: no more blown out sky, lost shadow/highlight details, blah contrast.</ul>

 

<b>What surprised me about digital (con):

 

<ul><li>How much time I spend in front of Photoshop</b> - As much as there are automated ways to do things, the time spent in front of Photoshop for me has increased dramatically. While I think I'm overall happier with my digital results, it has come at the cost of time. The tedious task of scanning film normally prevents me from trying to do some of the things I do now regularly with digital files.

 

<li><b>Hardware costs</b> - I thought I had what was a pretty decent computer a < 2 year old Dell P4. Boy, once you start handling those big bad files in Photoshop, you soon realize how badly you want more power. With my hard drive gone from half empty to bursting at the seams and my computer starving for memory, I had to upgrade my components sooner than I had expected.

 

<li><b>Nagging storage fears</b> - There's a "load off your back" feeling when you drop off the roll at the lab, and get back "real" negatives. Once I realized that half of my wedding pictures were on these two tiny cards, up rose all my past fears about digital storage - errors, crashes, etc. Making several backups is somewhat tedious, and even then, the horror stories I hear of CD-ROM's and hard drives destined to fail increase my anxiety quotient, and further grumble about perpetual archiving.

 

<li><b>Batteries</b> - Batteries used to be one of my least concerns shooting film - I could get tons of rolls per set, or the batteries simply powered the in-camera meter. After my camera ceased to operate very abruptly at one shoot, I am much more wary of battery usage and bringing piles of backups. Not a huge concern, but a mild nuisance nonetheless.

 

<li><b>How the LCD lies</b> - My camera does not have automatic histogram review, and the image on the LCD is like the sirens' song - so alluring, but can be so fatal if you trust what you see. It took me awhile to finally ignore what I saw and learn to fully understand and use the histogram.</ul>

 

<b>Why I still like/want to shoot film at times:</b>

 

<ul><li>I trust film, know how to shoot the ones I use, and have gotten good, reliable results with film. It's like a security blanket.

 

<li>I have just about all the film-based equipment I need now. While I've already picked up most of the digital gear I think I'll be using in the next while, the initial investment in bodies, lenses, and computer upgrades was pricey.

 

<li>I personally like the look that B&W emulsions give, and have not been able to mimic the look through Photoshop (yet).

 

<li>I miss the simplicity of plopping film in the camera and shooting on an all-manual body. I sometimes wonder if all my dial and mode adjusting on digital is taking me away from the composition part of photography. I also wonder sometimes if all this digital stuff has become a crutch for more sloppy photography on my part.

 

<li>Negative film has more lattitude for error than digital (at least with really contrasty situations), though you're at the mercy of the lab unless you print yourself.</ul>

 

Are any of these reasons to dismiss digital? No. Once I grow more familiar with my digital equipment and workflow, maybe it will seem much more natural, secure, second-hand. I know an all-manual camera can seem infinitely complex to someone who has only ever used a point and shoot. And you can be just as sloppy with film - relying on exposure lattitude, living by what the particular emulsion will give you.

 

<p>I still like film, and will probably continue to shoot it in the near future. But I truly do believe it's in its sunset, and people planning to invest long-term in photography should look/learn digital. Sure the Leicas and my Pentax LX will still be worth something as collectors' items, but will there be any film to shoot with?

Film as a long term commodity? Who knows. Those huge piles of disposeable cameras at your corner drug store each contain a 24 exp. roll of 35mm film. You get 27 exposures because you can't fog any when loading it. Until somebody comes up with a throwaway digital for the same money Kodak and Fuji will still be making color film.

 

Next we have the movie industry, which I suspect will stick with film awhile longer, at least until the megaplexes at the malls are all converted into flea markets. In the music video industry a lot of people still prefer "The Look of Film" just as they like the sound of tube amps, and yes, you can still buy tubes to keep them running. You can even buy a new tube amp to use with your electric guitar.

 

Ten years down the road there will be very few film manufacturers. Hell, there are few now! DuPont stopped making it in the late 1960's, Agfa merged with Perutz and Gavaert, Ansco became GAF and "poof", few sizes of sheet film are still made, but you can still buy a Speed Graphic and shoot pictures.

With a few minor caveats, I don't think there's a reasonable argument based on quality

which would justify sticking with film - but I stick with film anyway, for three basic

reasons.

 

First and most important is post-processing. I don't know if digital post-processing is

more complicated than film post-processing, but I *do* know that I can get somebody

ELSE to do the film post-processing CHEAP, fast, and good - and I can't yet get this for

digital, especially if I want black&white.

 

Second, and almost equally important, is something Al has already touched on -

complexity of the camera itself. I have a complicated modern SLR (F100), but these days I

mostly USE all-manual cameras, especially the Leica and the FM3a. I use almost

exclusively 400 speed film, so I don't often have to set ISO. This leaves me with aperture,

shutter speed, focus, and shoot. I don't even think the nerve impulses have to go all the

way to my brain - most of the processing is handled locally in my fingers, and I VERY

rarely make a mistake (I still make a lot of bad choices, but that's a different problem).

 

Third, and less important, is nagging doubt over archival properties. For prints this just

isn't an issue - digital output on photo paper is just as good as optical output on photo

paper. For the original image, it's a different story, and I'm going to take some

convincing.

 

There are a bunch of little things I use to justify my decision, but I know in my heart they

really aren't important. Sure, I like being able to be totally battery free, and I do actually

use this freedom fairly often. But I don't really NEED it. Sure, dark noise is a problem with

digital at high ISO, but most of my film is shot at ISO 400, which digital handles just fine,

and I almost never use a shutter speed longer than 1/15. Sure, digital has narrow-ish

latitude, but I shoot a lot of slide film anyway. etc....

 

There's one issue which I worry about and can't decide if my worry is justified or not:

sensor size. I'm not worried about excessively wide glass - I don't often shoot wider than

28mm, and I can easily get glass with that coverage for digital. I AM worried about fast

glass - I use f/1.4 a LOT, and it's not easy to get a wide f/1.4 digital lens with good

quality. But even that isn't the real issue. The real issues are tonality, especially in large

prints, and depth of field. Are bigger pixels better pixels, as some authorities seem to

think? I don't know. I do know that I like shallow depth of field for a lot of my shots, and I

can't get it with tiny sensors.

Actually, I wouldnt count on cinema/commercials to keep us all in film. High Def is about to really hit the professional moving image industry -- and the commercials directors I know are howling with delight about what it offers compared even to film. Movies wont be far behind. The cost is now about to come down to the same as digibeta, so high end TV will be next. Film is under siege from all sides.

i like the way film smells, and the way it looks hanging on the dryer, i love

handling the film canister and the feel of the advance lever, i love it when the

image suddendly appears on the paper while working on the darkroom, i love

handling an actual image,dry and ready to be framed,and i love the way a

photograph looks on the wall. maybe i`m just crazy. it`s a good thing that i am

only an amateur.

Hi Def maybe coming to cinema, but it's got a long way to go. Having recently been tangentially involved in a Hi Def feature, it's got a long way to go. For DP's that have been spent years working with film, the learning curve on HD is going to be incredibly steep. It will dominate the low end in a couple of years, but I wouldn't be surprised if people are still shooting high budget features on film 10 years from now. But that's just a WAG.

It is my hope that film stays viable well into the future. I have certain cameras and glass

that I trust totally when it is film I'm using. It's a history thing... where you've done it so

much you don't think about it or worry about it.

 

I don't quite understand how Commercial work is all that different from weddings. The

price and scope may differ, but an expense is an expense regardless of application.

 

Archival issues are real unless you research the products and use the correct ones and

correct methods. But that's true of film also.

 

In the end I guess nothing will change in terms of attitudes ... until changes become so

dominate it can't be ignored any longer.

I don't think there's much more to add to Marc's post. Use what you need and what works for you. I use the tools that help transform my vision into print. My vision and ideas may change over time, and so may the tools. I go back and forth -- not because one is better -- but because I have so many options to help me as a photographer.

 

My competitive advantage with digital is speed -- the faster I get the images to clients, the more prints they purchase, probably because they're still excited about the wedding. My assistant can proof a Saturday wedding on Monday and have a gallery online at noon. The client will receive proofs by Wednesday. Clients on their honeymoon will drop everything and run to a computer once they receive the message about the gallery.

 

Regarding the film world, I find that effects, such as cross processing, are easier to attain with film. Although accurately reproduced effects can be done in PS, it still takes much time.

 

I just bought a dusty 8x10 view camera on impulse at a camera show. I loaded 8x10 Polaroid (expensive at $10/sheet) and was amazed by the quality and color. I'm experimenting with other films, and I might actually start offering bridal portraits in this format -- even though I plan to purchase the monster IDSMII.

Right on Rich. Now that's the best of both worlds.

Marc,

 

You will recall that I had a major theft in Aug., lossing a 1v, EOS3, both with boosters, four L lenses and two other primes, two 550EX & ST-E2, along with a bag full of "stuff".

 

Luckly, my insurance came through and I just last week received, direct from Canon and B&H, $12,600. in NEW gear. I had to decide if I wanted to replace my lost bodies with the same film bodies or go digital. I spent several sleepless nights before deciding to stay with film. Yes, I know I could have gotten both film and digital, but the replacement company didn't like swapping out items that were on my claim for other items, even if I paid the difference. However, if I had pushed it, I could have gotten digital bodies. As it turned out I still had about $1600. out of pocket to cover deductables and upgrades.

 

I know digital is the new wave and the $3300. in new film bodies I just received are only worth about half that amount even if I sold them today NIB.

 

I still just like film and plan to shoot it for a while longer. I'm sure at some point I'll make the move to digital but, at this point, I don't plan on moving completely away from film.

 

Congrads on the possible book deal. Put me down also for a signed copy.

 

Cliff

"I don't quite understand how Commercial work is all that different from weddings. The price and scope may differ, but an expense is an expense regardless of application."

 

It's how you bill and get paid for expenses. Most wedding photographers have some "package". Let's say, 8 hrs of coverage and some number of proofs for $3k. You don't adjust your price

because you shot film or digital. If your expenses are lower you make more. On most commercial shoots the photographer's fee is some amount. Expenses, like film are charged as an itemized line item on the total bill. If you shoot digital you charge a "digital capture" fee instead. Whatever the photgrapher's portion of the bill is (what they make) doesn't change, because it's independent of the expenses.

Cliff, I'm so happy everything worked out!! I've been thinking about you.

 

Marc, best wishes with the book deal. I'd buy it!