Client camera preference

[duchan]

Are clients generally inclined to request either DSLR or analog coverage of an

upcoming wedding? One would think that the advancement of digital photography

and the immediacy of processing could influence such a choice, though an

acquaintance whose wedding I intend to cover in August has voiced preference

for analog coverage, stating that she is worried about digital disasters such

as file corruption and longevity of images stored on PC and/or CD-R. Have you

ever actually had to tame a client's doubts about such issues?

 

Greetings

Duchan

[conraderb]

client has been reading too many horror stories.

 

if you are a pro, then tell her of all the pro things you do to prevent digital disasters (multiple backup, shooting with two cameras, etc, etc, etc.) tell her how you have never lost a wedding, and how the vast majority of 'disasters' are really human error...etc, etc, etc.

 

digital gives you a huge advantage for archiving - you can duplicate files many times on multiple volumes in multiple places. that is very difficult with negatives, and the quality of any copied negs is nearly always inferior to the original.

[stephen dohring]

Sounds like something another photographer she was probably shopping would say. Old school and doesn't want to learn and invest in digital.

[michael_notar1]

i found the transition to digital hard, but i am happy now, ie i can get just a great of

results now. this was especially hard for b/w digital vs LF optical prints on fiber paper.

with instant review, the ability to correct color and exposure later, i dont see any pros for

film for weddings. tell thim that line perhaps.

 

i had some one ask your question to me, i can only think they were concerned about who

keeps the negs. with film negs there's only one set of negs, but if it was digital, i could

have multiple copies.

[Jerry_]

As the bride-to-be is paying the bill, one would guess she would have some say in the matter. If she wants film, and you cannot do so, then the bride is free to hire a different photographer. That is part of the free enterprise system....choices to be made.

[neilambrose]

<p>Nothing that unusual about a client asking for film. Ultimately she's only specifiying a

preference for the product you give her - so it's not much different to specifiying a desire for

b+w only, or shots in a certain style, or any other variation on a creative preference. Film

does have a different look to digital, and I meet a few people who prefer it and ask for film

for that reason.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p><em>with film negs there's only one set of negs, but if it was digital, i could have

multiple copies</em></p>

 

<p>Hmm. Ever heard of a scanner? :-)</p>

[steve_levine]

I think that "the medium you use, is the medium you use". If a bride wants a different medium, she would probably be happier with a different photographer.

 

As for the person above that gets better B&W with digital, than he did with LF (large format). I really hope you are making a joke?

 

 

I know a half dozen local pros that went digital, and then came to their senses. I personally couldn't shoot a wedding digitally if I wanted to. But in all seriousness, why would I want to? So I can give myself ulcers and a nervous tick?

[annealmasy]

We started in film. We're not digital. Digital is so much more cost-effective, I would NEVER

consider going back to film for weddings. We produce beautiful images with our digital gear.

If someone sees our work and thinks they can get better results from a film photographer,

they're welcome to go find one. :)

[annealmasy]

Oops. That was supposed to say, "We're NOW digital." :)

[david_schilling___chicago_]

It's rare that a client actually cares, generally they're just concerned with the end product. If anything, I think most clients see digital as the preferred medium as they are more likely to want internet orders, slideshows, digital files, etc.... and scanning film can take care of this issue. This is really more of an issue for photographers to fuss about.

[nancy s.]

I think what has happened is your client may have seen some bad work by someone who decided to become a "one day wedding photographer wonder" and was shooting digital.

 

Today, with automatic everything on a camera, people can produce wonderful images some of the time by putting the camera in "p" mode and firing away. The same can be said of film. However, many more people today have computer skills and so many more people (I belive) are using cameras and taking photos and using software to make them work. They make these images and voila! They try to shoot weddings.. and the lighting and the pressure is very different. They think they are doing great. Then there is a disaster or (worse) they don't recognize the disaster but continue to get work anyway because of price or lack of client knowledge.

 

This is not to say a good pro with knowledge of lighting and equipment does this. Not at all.

 

However, I too have had brides ask for film right up front because of some wedding that was not so good that was shot digitally. This is where being a good business person with the ability to deliver can still sell their work but they are going to have to have answers to the questions a bride might have AND they are going to have to have the quality work to back that up AND referrals who will extol the studio's virtues.

 

BTW digital is only cost effective in one area.. you don't have to pay for film or for film to be developed. Period. The costs of computers, software, camera equipment and the constant upgrades of all that far outstrip the cost of film and processing. You would have to be shooting a LOT of weddings for a good price to recoup the cost of digital in its depreciation time frame.

 

It is sort of like the guy who decides gas is so expensive he has to buy a Hybrid car. Yes. The hybrid car will save him $$ on gas. However, the car he is currently driving is paid for (or partially so), is older so costs less for insurance and has lower trade in value. So.. the guy trades it in for a Hybrid.. and spends $10,000 - $15,000 to do so...

 

You can buy a LOT of gas for $10,000!

 

For the cost of digital you can buy an awful lot of film. If you are going to shoot digital and you think it will be less expensive, you are fooling yourself. This is not to say it is a bad medium; it isn't. It is not a cheaper medium.

[fotografz]

I've had requests for film ... almost always it's from another photographer.

 

The wedding I did this week-end was for a computer systems expert ... a real nightmare

because he knows waaaaay to much about anything digital. He asked that "some" film be

shot because he could see the difference in the samples I showed him. But that's rare with

most clients.

 

Digital can be sold to almost anyone because society is like a rooting pig and will devour

as many images as you can plate for them .... so just use the "Can I Super Size that

wedding order for you". It's a commodity these days. Bushels of images for sale.

 

The argument about preservation on both sides is weak, no matter how much it gets

"yelled" on these forums.

 

You can store 100,000 digital wedding images in 10 locations and if the file format goes

south, you'll have a million useless images. If you update, it'll be a multiple location

logistics nightmare ... which only a handful of die-hards will do. For what? To keep some

family's record number of photos which they will never, ever use?

 

Same for film. The ideal would be an off-site safe deposit box or a large fire-proof home

safe ... but does that?

 

All these issues are quantity issues not quality. Copious quanitities is a product of the

digital age and "edit" is four letter word.

[blueform]

The problem with digital is the aspect ratio.

When i show a client a 8*8 print along side a 8*6 they always prefer the 8*8.

Assuming the majority of digi shooters are not using square sensors thier composition choices are limited.

I think its a nonsense to squeeze all the images into either upright or view, in my opinion it`s not giving the client a proper coverage.

I always explain this to clients and they see the benefits straight away. Big selling point.

So at the moment i shoot both

Just waiting until hassleblad prices come down !

 

James.

[picturesque]

I've never had to tame a client's doubts about those issues because I shoot both and will shoot either upon request. As Marc points out, the archival pros and cons are even in my mind. Most clients don't care what medium is used--they care about the final images and final product(s). Most clients, when made aware of the film/digital choice, choose digital because it is easier for them to manage in getting pictures to their family and friends. Plus, it is hard to find good labs, consumer or pro, that print optically from negatives anymore. Most clients can't tell the difference between prints made from digital vs. ones made from film. The few that can opt for digital anyway for the reason above. Consequently, to my dismay, I am shooting way less with my Hasselblad and EOS 3.

[duchan]

Thanks to all for feedback, as I'm very interested in this issue - and many more related to wedding photography. This is a great forum, I'm learning so much from you, I've come to begin and end my Internet time checking out the threads, the most recent postings in this forum. Greetings.

Duchan

[l_e]

slightly off topic... but I get tired of hearing about how the file format might become useless if standards change. In the computer world it is called backwards compatible. The JPEG standard is very universal a switch completely away from it would be very gradual if it happens. On the off chance it does happen the instruction set required to read jpg files is fairly small and would be super easy to include in any new image viewer. So 50 years from now you will still be able to view and convert jpg files.

 

I used jpg as an example, but any image file would be the same way.

[dave_thielen]

LE - have you tried finding a 5 1/4 inch drive to read some files that were archived 10 years ago? How about a 3 1/2 inch drive? Or even tried reading a CD drive burned back when quad speed was state of the art.

 

It's not just the image format, it's the media that it is stored on. It is a major issue, and a major problem, just talk to any librarian.

[craign]

<p>Ultimately, this is a business decision and you have two choices:<ol><li>Pick a medium (and workflow) and go with it. Make no apologies for your choice - it works for you. When a potential client requests a medium you don't use, refer them to an excellent photographer you know that uses their prefered medium. They will remember you gave them an excellent referral, and the other photographer may return the favor when he gets potential clients who want your chosen medium.</li><li>Use both mediums. Many (most?) photographers start with film and switch to digital (at least they used to). If you keep your film systems, it doesn't matter what the client requests - you are able to meet their request. If the client doesn't indicate a preference, you get to make the choice. The downside is you will need to shoot some of both to stay current.</li></ol>Which option you choose is completely up to you. There is no one right answer. Also, if you choose option one then you get to choose a medium and again there is no one right answer. I see advantages to both (though I've chosen film, at least for now).</p><p>My first wedding is this Saturday. Wish me well and I hope you do well regardless of how you decide.</p>

[duchan]

Craig: that is decent advice. I'm actually not disinclined to refer a client to another photog if I don't meet client expectations regardless of issue pertaining to wedding. Concerning your upcoming first wedding, the best of times for you!

D.

[blueform]

Just to reiterate, in my opinion if you elect not to include square compositions in your coverage than you are seriously limiting you and your clients end product.

 

 

James

[russ_konrad]

<b><i>"The problem with digital is the aspect ratio. When i show a client a 8*8 print along side a 8*6 they always prefer the 8*8. Assuming the majority of digi shooters are not using square sensors thier composition choices are limited. I think its a nonsense to squeeze all the images into either upright or view, in my opinion it`s not giving the client a proper coverage. I always explain this to clients and they see the benefits straight away. Big selling point. So at the moment i shoot both Just waiting until hassleblad prices come down !"</b></i>

<p>

Have you ever heard of "cropping" a picture?

<p>

Here is a "square" picture taken with a Nikon D200:

<p>

[Moderator note: Website link removed as per photo.net policy}

[fotografz]

It hip to be square.

[russ_konrad]

James,

<p>

How does my posting a square image from a Nikon D200 reinforce this comment you posted earlier in this thread?

<p>

<b><i>"Assuming the majority of digi shooters are not using square sensors thier composition choices are limited."</b></i>

<p>

My rectangular sensor does not limit my composition choices in anyway. I probably have more compositional options with a rectangular sensor than would be possible with a square sensor. With the ability to easily crop an image and still retain a high quality image - your comment is simply nonsense.

[jake_holt]

James,

 

Why am I limiting my product if I don't shoot square? Since I choose to shoot lots of images that rely heavily on the negative space available with a rectangular format, I would actually be heavily limiting my work if I shot square. One man's 'limitation' is another man's wide open canvas.