steve_levine Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Good news: The lab manager at the Mid-Hudson Valley's largest pro lab ("On Location" in Arlington,NY). Told me that film is coming back "big time" in the local wedding market. From what he told me the "ten hours of computer tweaking time", per wedding, is the deal breaker for most. The lab never got rid of it's KODAK pro system. And from what he tells me other labs are scrambling to buy these back, to meet demand. Could logic, good sense, ease of use and a better medium win in the end? Bad news: Most of the old school shooters at both ends of the price spectrum, are running at 1/3rd of their sales compared to pre 2004. The same marketing techniques that drove things alone for decades, have now failed. These folks are only seeing 33c of every $1 they did 3 years ago! You don't need an economics degree from Yale (like our esteemed president holds), to see that the "ranks" will thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmett_s Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 '...and a better medium...' You know that'll start a flame war don't you? I'm trying like heck to shoot more film, because ten hours is a low figure. Plus I like it more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie_caswell Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Had a class on studio lighting last night. Consisted of a dozen soccer moms, a male doctor, and maybe two other advanced photogs that had assisted doing weddings. Every soccer mom in the place had taken another local photogs series of classes and were trying to break into portraits. Good news (for me) most didn't seem to have a clue as to how to use their camera and don't think they ever will. Some were still shooting in program mode. Bad news... a third already had laid down a chunk of change for a pair of studio lights. Think the upper crust of Myrtle Beach will be saturated with family portraits. Don't think it changes the formula. The best business sense coupled with the best quality will always win IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtrace Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 While it's good for you and the lab you use, it's hardly indicative of the inevitable. To say digital will not BE the future, is to be blind. I love film too, but the longer you hold off using digital, the harder the transition will be. Bogdan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_holt Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 "Could logic, good sense, ease of use and a better medium win in the end?" <p> Your statement is just an opinioin, and there is no evidence that either small-format film or digital is outright superior, or as you say, "a better medium." I shot on 35mm for 10 years, and I now prefer digital because I enjoy the extra control that the workflow gives me as opposed to trusting a lab tech to print my film correctly and not scratch my one copy. I also prefer digital because I can make unlimited backups with no degradation in quality. Not to metion what I believe to be digital's increased ease of use, being that you can make WB and ISO changes on the fly. I like my digital work far better than my film work because I like the smooth digital aesthetic. I wouldn't shoot a wedding with film today, no way. But, that's just my opinion, and what works for me. And fyi, I consider myself to exibit good logic skills as well as good sense - and so does my transcript which shows I earned my Philosophy degree, including logic courses, with honors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbyrne Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 "Every soccer mom in the place had taken another local photogs series of classes and were trying to break into portraits. Good news (for me) most didn't seem to have a clue as to how to use their camera and don't think they ever will. Some were still shooting in program mode. Bad news... a third already had laid down a chunk of change for a pair of studio lights." What is it with the soccer moms and portraits lately? Was there an article in Soccer Mom Magazine or something? I just worked with an assistant for the first time that pretty much the whole time, she drilled me for info on portrait shooting. She didn't really know how to use her camera and after a few minutes I realized that all she wanted was info and had no interest in shooting weddings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timcorridan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 " the longer you hold off using digital, the harder the transition will be" = rubish. my parents bought their first puter at age 65, about 5 years ago. i started w/ a comadore vic 20, 25 years ago. we are of equal knowledge about windows/puters now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 For the vast majority, "adequate" is the target, and digital has made it possible for almost anyone to make an acceptable photograph. It should be no surprise that profits for everyday photographs have come down so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 I'm just passing along actual tales from the lab(crypt?). Not trolling. The lab is the place to feel the industry's pulse. Tom, the lab manager claims that some of the "new shooters" are trying to shoot JPEGS, and are making a real mess of a few people's weddings. Most digital shooters do an excellant job of shooting RAW, and using calibrated monitors. So the lab's job is fairly easy. It does seem according to him that the younger shooters have an easier time of learning digital. And many of the old school folks, are the "film return-ees". So perhaps in a few years, film, and the old school shooters will perish from the wedding scene? Is the fall off of sales, and the return of film, happening in other places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_holt Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Not trying to flaunt my degree here, nor would I flaunt a BA in Philosophy - just wanted to say that I have lots of experience in deducing faulty logic and I am confident that mine is not so. I know full well that a degree does not equal intelligence, as your example shows all too well! <P> Steve, in regards to your last post, I work at a lab 2 days a week just for a change of pace and to socialize, and yes, we have some former film shooters who went digital and expect to be able to shoot jpegs and have our lab correct them just the same as with 35mm negs. Some of them never understand that you just can't do that - there's not enough info there. They don't want to shoot RAW because they think it's too much work. I have seen some wedding disasters! The best way I've found to get across the exposure latitiude of jpegs to film shooters is to compare it to slide film. If digital was only jpeg, I wouldn't like it at all - however, I shoot RAW and love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacy Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 OT- Love your website Jake Holt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Film isn't coming back big time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtrace Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 OT: Are "heroes" allowed to post anything and not have posts modified and others not? Seems that way.. Bogdan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Whatever floats your boat! If you like film and have a decent lab nearby it gives you an option. If you prefer shooting digital and/or making your own prints then that's another option. Whether or not you can continue to make a living in the wedding photography business is a whole other question. Nobody ever said that life was going to be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lb- Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 bogdan trust me you don't want to start questioning site policy. it's a private site, they can do whatever they want. take it with a smile or walk away seems to be the best approach, otherwise you start down an ugly path. <p> I'll probably be banned again for posting that :( <p> anyway..... <p> steve is just pushing his opinion and that of one guy at one lab in suburban upstate nyc. nothing to get bent out of shape about. <p> his statement.... <p> <i>Could logic, good sense, ease of use and a better medium win in the end?</i><p> that has people up in arms isn't really so terrible.<p> "logic", like "fact" and "truth" are terms that are clearly used in place of "opinion" as a matter of course here. "good sense" is already a subjective as is "ease of use and a better medium".<p> Where I work there is no lab. I have to send film to the US, so ease of use tips heavily toward digital for me. <p> It's easy enough to understand the vitriol of many of the self styled "old school" photographers. many had a good thing going for years and that good thing is going away. digital cameras are a part of it and an easy target. as steve says, the "ranks with thin", nothing wrong with that. <p> but for those who shoot film exclusively and have a handle on how to run a successful business you rarely see the digi-hating. Look at the moderator of this forum. all film, seemingly very successful and I can't recall any silly anti-digi stuff from her. <p> most photographers that seem bitter generally have something to be bitter about, but if all that negative energy were channeled into something more productive one can only imagine......<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_newberry___northern_ Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 We shoot film and agree with Al Kaplan luckily we have a good lab nearby and it's inexpensive.If it were otherwise we would switch to digital to have more control over the color. Digital has cool options in that you can create personal artistic visions while you are taking the shot that you can enhance later digitally to create something special that reflects your individual style. Photographers like Beckstead and Gino are great at this IMO. We prefer film because everyone else is digital(or so it seems)here in San Francisco as Nadine mentioned so it makes us a bit different than 90% of the other photographers here which certain clients seem to be looking for. Some of the most demanded photographers in California like Todd Rafalovich, Alisha&Brook Todd, Jose Villa, Joe Buissink are film and they seem to be quite popular here still. IMO the style and personality are more relevant than the medium used so it's not an important consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Steve--which lab is that? Do they print optically? I might be more inclined to continue with film if I had a lab that printed optically. Lab scans and digital prints from film, so far, have been very disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Still shooting film --for the most part. We shoot digital only when someone pays for that "ten hours of computer tweaking time", per wedding. I can't believe shooters simply include that "computer time" in the package. Our film weddings are generally $800-1000 less > than digital. Unless the clients just wants RAW files ~ burned to a DVD. It is getting difficult to find a optical printing lab...the scanned stuff just isn't quality enough for my client base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erie_patsellis Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Interesting, I am returning to wedding/social/portrait shooting after a long time away from it. My take (for what it's worth) is shooting formals in 6x7 MF, ceremony shots in 35mm film, and candids with digital, makes the most sense to me, I have the quality where it's needed, and the ease of shooting where it's less critical. erie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 The application of logic is interesting in what is primarily an emotionally driven product. Each of us has our own take on this. The "smooth digital aesthetic" that Jake likes is what I despise about the medium. But since most people like this aspect, it's not a bad thing for business. My "faulty" logic is that the two can co-exist. I could care less that proofs from film are digitally printed rather than optically done ... as long as the content is there for evaluation. I then scan my own selects for the album and display prints. NO ONE can scan my negs the way I want them ... just like no one could make my darkroom silver prints the way I wanted them. It's part of the creative process IMO, and a digital evolution of post processing when using film. I still use film because I think and feel it looks better than digital when printed. My quest is to replace optical prints with digital ones that retain the things I like about film. I've found that the scan is the biggestest factor in that process. Printers are getting better, and better papers are being produced to also aid in my quest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_morris4 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 This doesn't seem quite right: Marc is merely a "prolific poster," and not a "hero." What's up with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Marc--how is the Imacon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 He used to be before p.net introduced the 'prolific poster' thing and downgraded a whole bunch of 'heros'. It is rather strange how some people remained heros though when a few who I could name (I'm not talking about Steve) should have been long banned for their obnoxious attitude nevermind downgraded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I get the 949 scanner tomorrow Nadine. The reseller is the same that sold me my Imacon digital backs, and they were setting up the new scanner and testing it completely before bringing it to my studio. I'm bummed that I couldn't shoot the 503CW last weekend because my D-40 flash failed in my pre-wedding gear check. The second one also failed. But it's not the camera(s) or lens sync. I cannot for the life of me figure out the problem. Grrrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Funny that two failed at once. What were the symptoms, if I may ask? 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