Wiser use of our time!

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I feel I used to get better candid ("pj") images with film. Setting 400 film at 250,

exposing for the shadows and shooting away worked wonders for me. Even shooting on

program modes gave me awesome exposures of fast moving events...

 

With digital (a D1x) exposures suffered. Too dark, too light, unable to use program modes

I had to stop and meter many a scene to get the proper exposures. It slowed me down and

the images showed...Overexpose a nice image of a bride in black & white and you have a

gorgeous photograph. Do the same with digital and you are in trouble...Racoon eyes

started to appear in my photographs, for overexposing (to make sure I would have enough

light under those eyes) would grossly overexpose the wedding dress...

 

</I><P>All of which tells me you didn't know what you were doing technique wise (I'm

not commenting on your photographic skills --I don't know your work or you, so please

don't take offense) with digital.<P><I>

 

 

 

Yes. One can try to fix that with flash, but then the image itself suffers. I love the softness

of natural light, and I had no problem using it with film.</I><P>I use natural light much

more

with digital photography than I ever did with film. That is just my experience.<P><I>

 

But besides that, the market where I am does not pay well. (There are other advantages of

living here though, otherwise I would not have moved.) Budgets are very tight here. So, for

me, here, it makes sense to offer, say, a couple of rolls of film per hour, shoot them, get

the 4x6s and deliver them to the clients. End of story.They know how many photographs

they will get. If they want more, not a problem. I can shoot much more, at an increased

price. So, I enjoy an economic benefit -- I charge for my time photographing plus some

product -- without the additional expense of using my time for editing, besides hand

picking any bad images out of a pile of photographs, which takes almost no time.</I>

<P>That of course has nothing to do with digital or film. <P><I>

 

 

I enjoy the beauty of film with its latitude and the "hand craftsmanship" feel to it.</I><P>

Now there is an illusion. Do you actually think your film and pritns are developed by hand

at wha tever lab you mail them too/ And also what are you goignto do when the film gets

lost i nthe mail coming or going from the mail order lab you use? Do you have liability

insurance to cover this eventuality?<P><I>

 

 

There is no need to print your own work, unless, again, you charge quite well for it.</I>

<P>As I said earlier: you can outsourse this wit hdigital iamges quite easily and not

risking losing your originals.<P><I>

 

And this brings me back to the point I wanted to make before but seems to have gotten

lost. If photographers charge good money for using their time editing, cropping, color

correcting, retouching and altering images for their clients, that is just fine.

 

The problem, however, is that a whole lot of photographers are providing those additional

services at no extra charge. </I><P> well that is of course a recipe for economic

suicide.<P><I>

In any case, this film model works for me</I><P>And that is all that really

matters.<P><I>Digital cameras are still trying to emulate film. They are still trying to get

film's latitude and the "feel" of certain emulsions (Velvia, etc).</I><P>Nope. it is

individual photographers who are trying to do that. Not all are. Honestly I think it is a

passing phase.<P><I>

 

Film still produces images that might be better than those captured digitally (this

depending on the photographer, of course) and it can easily be scanned for those that

would prefer a digitized photo.</I><P> Well said.

[jmichaelc]

"People buy into this crap for some reason? "

 

 

 

I would have the same frustrations if i were to have to deal with the workflow of film. Why? Because i am now one of the old guys of digital, film would be an entirely new world to someone like me. I would probably try it for a little while but would give it up in wonder why anyone in their right mind would operate that way. It boils down to what makes sense to you and what you are use too. I have yet to have a single client request film. Many however, at the beginning of our consultation, ask if i shoot digital. In the end, it's the hard print presentations that get their signature on the dotted line. If your prices doesn't equal out to the service options in which you are providing in terms of time, then there is a very easy solution to that problem. 1) develop a good time management workflow and 2) adjust prices to compensate.

 

I've worked very hard to balance both. When i walk away from a wedding, my goal is to be compensated well while at the same time provide them quality products that cancells out any argument of the money they spent. Do that and this entire argument is void.

[rtrace]

"Speaking more broadly, I don't understand this need to pass judgement on how others capture their images and how much time they spend in post. Some people work very efficiently and have a well-honed rhythm down and can process extremely quickly. Their flow/process works for them."

 

I think the main reason people keep debating the merits of film vs. digital (and who should shoot what, etc.) is mainly ignorance really. Ignorance of the benefits of either medium - film or digital. Because both mediums have their merits as well as their downsides, and if people were in fact not so ignorant, they would recognize the merits and not make silly statements either way.

 

It seems to me that the ones pushing for this or that, are ones who aren't really that familiar with shooting both mediums for whatever reasons. And I'm not saying one needs to be (one can choose to shoot only film or only digital, which is absolutely fine), but then don't comment please on what you don't know.

 

I also have to say that I see a lot of anti-digital comments from those that seem to have had some frustration shooting digitally because it presents new challenges.

 

I don't see such comments and much debating from shooters of both mediums. Shooters who have mastered both film and digital. They may prefer the look of one over the other for certain things, but they don't make silly arguments for or against. They shoot both for a reason..

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

All the financial arguements concerning digital processing preclude that there is a

threshold to what you can charge in any given market ... be it lower, middle or upper ends

of that market. It's set by a competitive marketplace.

 

That competitive market is more and more being based on quanity ... turning it into a

commodity. "How many photos do you shoot" has become a stock question. It's a question

that's been heightened by the proliferation of digital. Some, maybe many, now shoot over

a thousand images at a wedding.

 

What, pray tell, will the client do with all those pictures? Do a little follow up with previous

clients ... for the most part, they do nothing with them. They can have them, so they want

them.

 

So, for the same amount of money as before, we now provide 2X, 3X, 5X the amount of

images that few clients do anything with. It's a Gang Bang ... and regardless of your skill

at processing, or the use of automated programs, and super streamlined work flow, you

are slaving over a hot computer for minimum wage.

 

It's a throughly modern fact of life.

[german]

Wow! How much animosity in here!

 

The debate is not about the merits of digital versus film, or the knowledge or ignorance about any of these mediums. It is simply about how a lot of us, photographers, have added extra work onto our backs and continue to charge the same, or reason we can even charge less, since we don't have the expense of film and/or developing.

 

If you don't see it now, that's OK. But you will see it eventually. It's just a matter of logic.

 

If there is a way to produce the work with less effort I will take it any day. Film, for me, where I am, is the way.

 

If you have just begun and know nothing but digital, it makes no difference to you. You have no way to compare it to anything.

 

If you are outsourcing the digital editing and printing part, making sure to include said charges into your fees, that is awesome. Most wedding photographers, however, do not do that.

[al_kaplan1]

Setting 400 ISO film at 250 just might be indicitive of somebody with great skills, a person familiar with their cameras and meter, their particular way of metering, and if B&W film, the way they develop to get the negative they prefer. It's all about results.

 

I have a friend who's made the switch 100% to digital. He loves spending all those hours at the computer. I got a call today from somebody that I'd given one of my cards at a function a few months ago. It was obvious from the questions where it was leading and I gave her Mike's phone number. He'll give her what she wants.

[rtrace]

German,

 

I was replying to Steve's post but cut and pasted Brad's reply instead of Steve's.

 

Bogdan

[jmichaelc]

All those hours at the computer is NOT a necessity, but a choice. A perfectionist can be just as paticular through the lens as they can be behind a computer. Doing so will eliminate the need for computer time.

 

I'm one of those that shoots 1000 exposures at every wedding. Not hard to do during a 10-12 hour wedding (by choice). I now spend about 5 hours of design time and about 15 minutes to burn a DVD.

 

So wouldn't the time element boil down to a specific approach? Does digital automatically = time? I'm of the belief that it's not the # of photos that signs contracts....it's the presentation of what they see and are to expect of you. I also belive that when initial capture ability matures, there is very very little difference between the mediums - at least from what i can see at viewing size with my eyes. If i can't see it, i'm pretty sure my clients cant.

[rtrace]

"I've said this before, but don't mind repeating it. If weddings were all I shot, I would NEVER have gone digital."

 

Marc, I asked above in regards to this. Why don't you shoot the weddings you do shoot on film if you can? You say you shoot film with a Canon 1V once in a while, but why not all the time? I don't get it. Why bother with digital if you don't like it? I don't get it.

 

Bogdan

[german]

Hey, thanks Al. (The shortcomings of the equipment cannot be construed as lack of technique. I am sure, however, that the D2Xs provide much better metering than my good old -- now sold -- D1X.)

 

Bogdan, no problem. These long posts sure get complicated!

[robbie_caswell]

Take Bussinick and Ascough. Both were film shooters with completely different styles and tools. Joe's work didn't look anything like Jeff's. I doubt changing to Canon digital did little to hurt them or change them other than giving more options.

 

My pro lab owner tried to convince me to buy his now dismantled dark room. He said to offer custom printing etc... How much time would I need to develop the necessary printing skills to offer a unique product? Sounds great in theory, but if the lab owner washed his hands of it, what should I expect?

 

Many of my clients will be destination B+G's and family portraits only here for a weekend at the most. Local brides are conditioned to expect 500 prints.

 

Do I spend another year taking a printing class ($1000 per semester), building a darkroom ($2000). How much spent in trial and error? This just to offer a unique product to what, maybe 15-20 brides who might care enough to look past dollar figures and print numbers? Do I give what the market and consumer expect?

 

I would love a silver bullet answer.

[picturesque]

German--it doesn't work out for me that digital shooting is a waste in postproduction time. I charge the same now as I was charging with film, but it happens to work out the same (given time equals money). First, shooting is shooting, so the time spent there is the same. Then, if I shoot film, I spend between $250-$350 (sometimes more) for film, processing, proofs and proof book (medium format, including scanning). This works out to about the same amount for postproduction time if I charged over a hundred dollars an hour for the average postproduction time of 1-2 hours that it takes me to bring my RAW files to proof stage. I don't do any refinements on anything but the final selects for the album and for enlargements, and carding negatives, or even sorting them, could equal that time.

 

As for the actual shooting, I learned to shoot for an optimal image with either medium, so that is a wash in my book.

 

I love shooting with film and see it's beauty, but the most worrisome aspect of that now is finding a lab that can handle film efficiently and print optically--to convey that beauty successfully. Lab scans just don't look very good, and the resulting digital prints from them are less than exciting. That's why I still end up carding negatives, and now I'll be scanning my own negatives (talk about time consumption).

 

So if your film workflow satisfies you and clients, that is great. But that doesn't automatically mean that it will be the same for every photographer.

[fotografz]

Marc, I asked above in regards to this. Why don't you shoot the weddings you do shoot on

film if you can? You say you shoot film with a Canon 1V once in a while, but why not all the

time? I don't get it. Why bother with digital if you don't like it? I don't get it.

 

There you go jumping to conclusions again Bogdan. I said IF weddings were all I did ...

which was a reference to the cost of going digital from previous discussions.

 

Besides, I DO shoot film at every wedding... Leica M, Hasselblad 503CW and 203FE, as well

as ocassionally the 1V. A good percentage of my samples in my

portfolio are from film. But I have a huge investment in commercial level digital cameras

which were funded by commercial work ... so I use them to get more from them before

they're obsolete. I never said I didn't like digital, you said that for me. I think each medium

has it's own merits, so I use both and refuse to exclude either.

 

I don't understand the comment someone made about this becoming a film/digital debate.

Read the original post and the request for comments relative to it.

 

To those who shoot a thousand pics ... what do the people do with all of them? Most

really big albums take about 100 to 150 images ... where do the other 850 go?

[jmichaelc]

"where do the other 850 go"

 

They go on a little 12 centimeter circle....a DVD.

 

One of those 850 was used for a custom thank you card that i received several months back. One past B/G used their images to create their own slide show for family and friends that they sent to me for review - pretty good actually. If they are like my wife and i, we went through all of ours that our family and freinds were in and sent specific ones that had them in it in our thank you cards that we made. And then there is that special one of an elderly family member that was cherished after they pass away (happened recently). Many Many uses for those extra shots and my clients are greatful they have them. Just because i shoot 1000 shots doesn't mean that i keep everyone of them. They are used to fulfill the specific service option the customer choose.

[quanvu]

Amen to Dave Jenkins's comments. :-)

I get my hand on my first Nikon FM more than 35 yrs ago and countless hours in the darkroom to produce my own pictures. I am now doing it with my Canon 30D and Photoshop (without inhaling chemicals) and enjoyed every minute of it (except when S#!t@ happened with my PC). Ten or more years from now, it's almost impossible to do it with negative/film without paying a hefty price, because it'll so "antique" and hard to find replacement part without robbing a bank, or a 2nd/3rd mortgage for it. It's time to "Move On".

[chetn]

I note a difference between film users and digital is the film users general acceptance of the original image as final. I find the digital photograph is the beginning of the image making process and PS enhancemant etc crafts the image into something better, this is the joy of digital. Yes it takes time but I have the option to make a better image (shooting digital takes less time than scanning film and then enhancing in PS). I dont think image quality suffers, as you can still expose accurately and compose a shot with a digital camera. I dont get the shot right all the time and with a few tweeks it is corrected, I dont think using film would improve my camera skills per se. I believe the album created is more than a collection of photographs but a montage of wedding day memories real and implied (thanks PS).

Just an observation, look at how digital has improved the general quality of photography by reducing the cost of shooting thus allowing the digital photographer to practice (cheaply). Check out the photos on photo.net back when it started and photos on this site present day: massive quality improvement in all areas: exposure, composition, design etc.

[rtrace]

Marc,

 

I was simply curious as to why you just don't shoot all in film since your

statement here was pretty strong - i.e. "It is a monumental task just to equal what you get

from film with no extra effort.". I guess you must like the extra effort! But I guess I'm jumping

to conclusions..

 

Bogdan

[uk]

Jammey said:

 

"where do the other 850 go"

They go on a little 12 centimeter circle....a DVD."

 

Does that mean you work all images to your presentation standard ?

 

That would take me a pile of time. I work 150 to a final quality and then colour match the

Bride's choice of circa 100 for the album once they are in the Jorgensen album software.

[fotografz]

Yes you are Bogdan, because there are other factors at work here. Like the fact that when

I employ a second shooter, he is using the same digital gear as I am and doesn't shoot film

... so we time sync the cameras and load all of it together in one file for editing. Another

factor is when using film it is most often B&W, which I still think digital cannot match, and

maybe never will ... which is a creative decision, not a business one.

 

I DO think comparitively speaking it is a lot of work to do digital, but reserve the right to

make a creative call as situations indicate. The assumption that more work = use film

instead, isn't a creative decision, it's simply an assumption. I'm not questioning using

both, you are for me.

 

The clients don't question the use of both either. Contrary to the experience of others

here, I HAVE had a number of clients request all film ... perhaps a function of my client

base, some of which know quite a bit about photography. I've literally had to talk them

into letting me also shoot digital. Other clients that want digital, don't care if I shoot film

as long as I provide them my selects or album choices on a DVD. They want the photos,

and don't care "how the sausage is made". We are the ones obsessing about that aspect,

not the clients.

 

The full context of my notion that I would not have gone digital if weddings were all I did,

was based on having done both exclusively ... and knowing that film is less expensive in

terms of time verses money. The only difference is the price of film itself and the

processing of the negs, proofs are the same price. So, in exchange for the price of film

and neg processing, you sit there in front of a computer doing the lab's job processing

RAW files to the quality level you automatically get from film (assuming you know what

you are doing).

 

Lastly, virtually ALL commercial work is now digital. This work has funded gear I'd never

purchase for weddings (like a H2D/39) ... but what fool wouldn't use it if they had it, and it

wasn't dependant on wedding income to be paid for : -)

 

In the end, no one is going to alter their thinking based on these threads, me included. IF I

were shooting 100 weddings a year instead of 20, I might alter it really fast. One thing is

for sure, IF I had a 100 weddings in front of me, I sure wouldn't be processing RAW files

myself, and I'd seriously look at film or getting someone else to do the digital work for me

to my standards.

[matt_needham]

I never liked shooting color film, because I hated dropping it off at the lab halfway through the image making process for someone else to finish. Clients demanded color, so I shot it, but 99.9% of my personal work was BW, because I have my own BW darkroom, and get to do the post processing myself. Digital has me interested in color photography again. I enjoy the added control it gives me in the image creation, find the time I spend post processing to be fulfilling, and compared to working in the darkroom it's much faster. It may be a waste of time for some (many?) photogs, but I don't consider the image making to be done the moment after the shutter closes. At that point for me it's at best half finished. I still shoot lots of BW film, but I may never shoot another roll of color film in my life.

[rtrace]

" I'm not questioning using both, you are for me."

 

Marc - I think you are being way to serious here and reading into things too much. Like I

said, I was just really curious why not shoot all film since I know you don't mainly shoot

weddings. So I was thinking if you said that above, why not? That's all. You finally

explained

it, which is seriously what I was looking for, but not before saying I'm jumping to

conclusions

or questioning you - which I wasn't. I use both as well, but that post you missed?

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

BTW, I know the other 850 go on DVDs ... that wasn't the question. We provide a thousand

images, and people use maybe 200 to 250. That's the "commodity" mentality at work. So,

it's not what you do with them, what are they doing with them ... and all the work you put

into them for no more money than when we produced 300 to 400 shots? I found that they

are doing nothing with them. They live on a DVD in a closet ... for free.

 

So, either we are giving them 700 to 800 spare shots "as is", or we are spending some

time on them in post.

 

IMO, and no offense to anyone in particular, but what is really at play here are

exaggerations as to processing times with a thousand RAW files. It's like some weird

contest, where everyone is suppose to suspend reason and buy into anything anyone says

as fact.

 

If you spent an average of 30 seconds per RAW file it'd take over 8 hours to do 1000

images. That's not including eating, sleeping or excreting. I'm using a super powerful dual

processor computer with 7 gigs of RAM and batch process 20-30 images at a crack in

ARC, then use the Image processor to convert to Tiffs and Jpgs at the same time ... then

burn a DVD set @ 4X speed ... so I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. For the most part,

digital processing is a sink hole for time ... and if you don't charge for that time it's being

done for free. The problem is that prices didn't increase in relation to that extra time out

in the real competitive world.

 

I also don't buy the "creative" choices angle either. What's creative about redundantly

processing all the "must have" shots of family groups and processions, recession shots

and grand entrance shots, and all that sort of work?

 

Robbie, I did an analysis of all film verses all digital. Like Nadine I found it to be a wash

financially but spent less time on the film wedding. HOWEVER, I work differently than most

wedding photographers. I pick the pictures for the album. So I develop the film, get proofs

(no DVD unless they want to pay extra for a high resolution one), select only the shots for

the album and scan only those to my standards. They get the negs, proofs and the final

album.

 

Unlike Nadine, who is just starting the scanning exploration, I've worked out systems for

scanning and have set profiles built for the films I use and the way I shoot. I also print my

own albums (whether digital or film) and in the case of film shots have worked out

techniques and use papers that come very close to optical prints.

 

But I am a hybred shooter, and don't wholesale discriminate against either medium,

instead select each on their own merits. Creativity does trump business logic ... but not on

1000 images it doesn't ... more like 40 or 50 in my case.

 

Hey German, I agree ... the F100 is great .... and the Mamiya RZ is indeed awesome. I kept

mine, and consider it the best photographic value going. The darn camera and set of

excellent lenses can be had for a song these days.

[jmichaelc]

"So, either we are giving them 700 to 800 spare shots "as is", or we are spending some time on them in post"

 

Bingo! To anyone who feels as if this is something wrong...why? Like i said before, a perfectionist can be just as paticular through the lens as those who feel it's best accomplished behind a computer. However, concentrating on the initital capture will eliminate the need for computer time. I didn't start out that way however. I began my digital approach with less than satisfactory results which landed me many many hours in front of the computer trying to fix that of which lacked at initial capture. I'm thankful for that time, because in the process, i gained some awesome computer image manipulation techniques, while at the same time, it made me realize what i should be doing at point of capture. so, i choose to give up the computer time and apply those things that were initially missing to my images at the point of capture. That in itself has allowed me to concentrate on what i love doing best - shooting. It has also allowed me to provide great results "AS IS" and concentrate on highlighting the day with select images to design with. That's the approach i've choosen to take with absolutly no exaggerations about it.

 

"So, it's not what you do with them, what are they doing with them ... and all the work you put into them for no more money than when we produced 300 to 400 shots?"

 

I answered as to what they (customers) are doing with them in my previous post. As to the time and effort of work put into those extra shots....wouldn't that depend on a paticular approach? My approach takes a very hard working 10-12 hour (most weddings) day, 5-7 hours (at most) of design time, and 15 minutes to burn a DVD. Now, compare cost effective annalysis to that approach.

 

"We provide a thousand images, and people use maybe 200 to 250"

 

How do you know which 200-250 they are going to use? Roughly speaking, that's about 25% of the images provided. Pretty good in my book given that probably 50% of them had no personal attachment value to them or their specific friends/family. IMO it's great that they have a variety to choose from :)

[german]

Hey Marc,

 

You are doing a great job of getting the point across. By the way, the F100 is about 5 or 6 years old and works like a charm. No upgrade needed. Nothing. I paid about $800 (or so) new back then.

 

For the Mamiya I paid about $500, recently, with lens and all. Not a bad price, and the images it produces are gorgeous.

 

For the scanning, Nadine, try Millers (http://www.millerslab.com ). They do an awesome job and are very quick. I sent them a roll on Saturday's mail and received it on Tuesday -- with high resolution files and all. The prints, which they do from the scans, look awesome.

[german]

One point that nobody has touched (in these posts) is that of archival considerations on the images we capture.

 

I photographed a conference given by Mighty Joe Young's creatives and executives (in my "Hollywood" days) and they mentioned the beauty of digitally creating Joe Young (and the painstaking work!). But hey, it's Hollywood and they have plenty of $$.

 

In any event, they got to the point where they discussed the archiving of the images and how archiving methods for digital imagery become obsolete within relatively short periods of time. How one method of archiving today may not be available in 10 or 20 years. How would we read these files then, they asked.

 

Simple, they responded, we can create some type of tape where we can record such files, since we've been able to read tape (or "film") since the beginning of the past century, and if we find such film from, say, 1910, we can still read it today.

 

Great, they concluded! We'll use film!

 

How ironic, they realized.