Securing digital wedding images, how to?

[djphoto]

Marc, with all due respect -- and I do respect you very much -- I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Also, please note that I am neither criticizing nor telling you how to run your business. I'm only stating how I run my business. I shot my first wedding in 1971 or '72, so I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. And yes, up to a point, more does equal better, at least in my experience.

 

IMO, it is your math that is off, not mine. I based my figures on the catalog prices of CPQ, a well-known professional lab located in Cleveland, TN, not far from me.

 

They charge $4.30 to process a 36-exposure roll. That, and the cost of the roll of film itself will get you a processed strip of film. At that point you are only out-of-pocket $124.50 for 15 rolls, but you have nothing to show your clients. For that, you'll either need proofs or high or low-res scans. Leaving proofs out of the equation, since a digital camera does not provide them, low-res scans are 25 cents each, or $9 for the roll. Add $2.50 for the CD and the total is now $19.80, or $297 for your 15 rolls. 20mgb scans are 58 cents and 30mgb scans are a dollar each.

 

Since it's getting pretty hard to find a lab that makes prints on an enlarger, and very expensive if you do, you are still going to need high-res scans from many of the images at some point. If you choose to go the low-res route initially, you will either pay for the price of a scan in the cost of the print or you will have to scan the negative yourself. How much is sitting in front of a computer scanning negatives worth to you?

 

To make another comparison, let's say I do get proofs from my digital files. If I shoot film and order processing and proofs from CPQ, it will cost me $21.12 per roll with low-res scans. Add $4 for the film and the cost is $25.12 per roll, or $376.80 for 15 rolls.

 

Since I can get good 4x6 proofs for 25 cents each from White House Custom Color, those 540 shots will cost me $135. I come out $241.80 ahead if I shoot digital. And no, I don't mind the computer time. I find it far preferable to sorting and numbering proofs, carding negatives, etc. Furthermore, in actual practice, while you will be paying for all 540 proofs, I will only be paying for 300 or so of them, for a total of $75, because I will edit my files before sending them to the lab. If we do paper proofs, my total expense will be about $75, while yours will be more than $375. I will keep $300 in my pocket.

 

As to other expenses involved in digital photography, as I stated, the cameras are generally more expensive, but not necessarily so. A 30D is a quite capable wedding camera, but costs less than a Leica M7 or a Hasselblad. As for computer equipment, you're going to need that in any case, because in the nature of the situation you're going to be dealing either with original digital files, or with scans. So, taken as a whole, the tools for film photography are at best only marginally less expensive.

[alec_myers]

Do you guys actually have time to shoot any pictures in between arguing about the size of your pen... sorry - number of cameras you need to shoot a wedding and working on your "how much would this cost me if I shot film" spreadsheets?

[djphoto]

No, Alec, photo.net pays us each $100,000 a year to keep the discussions moving.

 

It's a good idea to know the various costs involved in doing business if you want to stay in business. Which I have, full time since 1978. Marc has been in business quite a while, too.

 

Dave Jenkins

[robbie_caswell]

Dave,

 

Thanks for the email and taking the time to contribute and educate me on the cost of film.

 

However, am I missing something? Can't I write film and lab expenses off? You don't get that benefit from sitting at the computer, and I'd bet 99% of digital shooters don't bill for time post processing.

 

Not trying to convince myself or anyone else the economics of it all.

 

Digital has flattened the learning curve for me. I'm striving to get it right in camera to ease my post shoot drudgery.

 

However, tommorrows four hour beach wedding and reception will get a heavy dose of film through the 1v and 17-40 f/4 because I got a fridge full of pro film, want the the latitiude, have environmental concerns, and just plain want a break...

[djphoto]

Robbie, if you spend $300 or whatever per wedding on film and processing, that will reduce your taxable income by that amount. It doesn't mean you reduce the taxes by $300 -- it just means you don't pay tax on the $300 (or whatever amount it may be).

 

I certainly build the cost of post-processing into the rates I charge, and for commercial work, I bill it separately. You should too.

 

I shot film from 1968 to 2003. I haven't shot any since, nor do I wish to. As far as I'm concerned, digital is better in just about every conceivable way. But others have differing opinions. So by all means, shoot whatever you like and whatever works for you.

[fotografz]

Alec, I agree with Dave ... wedding photography is more than just taking photos ... a lot

more ... or you'll end up working for peanuts and then wonder why your business is

failing.

 

As far as having time to shoot photos, sure ... I've sold over 1,500 images in the past 2

weeks for wedding and commercial clients. It's that kind of volume that triggers business

discussions like this for obvious reasons.

 

Dave, I didn't mean to empirically say film is cheaper (although I still suspect that it is), but

at worse it's a wash. However, that does depend on how you you sell in the whole thing.

 

When I shoot film, I provide the proofs, but no accompanying lab scans on CDs since they

are sub-standard for final album prints IMO. The only enlargements are the ones the client

pays for use in an album. So the only cost difference is the price of the film rolls and

processing (roughly $160.) verses the time spent editing and processing 600 digital files.

 

Commercial work is an entirely different deal. I haven't shot a commercial job on film in 5

years.

[robbie_caswell]

My original gripe really had nothing to do with film or digital. Card failure is an ongoing nightmare, and it's why I'm considering an Epson-like device to backup images to during a wedding. When second shooting it was honestly less of a concern. Just another $600... when I should have bought a mark2n (for me environmental sealing and dual card slots) in the first place.

 

My issue with digital is a "me" problem I'm trying to work out in the camera at the initial moment of capture. Mostly on the backend doing simple tweaking to get everything consistent is where I bog down.

 

It's more computer illiteracy slowing me down and making a drudgery of the process.

 

As a part timer it does cost in other ways. My wife gripes about my computer time so I edit after she is in bed. I get less sleep.

 

I wasn't on my soapbox, because I could never give up my 5D but like Marc think it's a wash.