How many are doing paid product/studio work with film?

[Despite_it_all]

Hi,

I'm curious how many of you out there are still using your medium format camera's to do professional (ie: paid) photography work for clients in realms such as product or portrait photography?

I feel like there is a niche market here where clients/businesses will pay for the look of film even though the digital option is clearly available. Or perhaps there is a redundancy setup some of you use were you might shoot digital but also add in a few film shots as well as a "bonus" for the client?

My ulterior motive here is for me to justify the local purchase of a beautiful Hasselblad 500 CM system, which is not cheap. If I can look at it as a tool for business, I might have the ability to justify the purchase a bit more. But, I'm also genuinely curious if there are those out there using their medium format setups to still do paid studio work.

 

[Vaidotas]

Interesting question.
My last commisioned work with Hasselblad V was on 2010 …
Then H system came, and now it discontinued.
Time flies.

 

[guangong]

While having no first hand knowledge, but from what I understand about product photography for advertising and catalogues, using film is no longer economically feasible. Digital is the only practical way to select one shot from a large number.
You raised an interesting question. Would like to hear from those involved in industry.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I haven't shot film for money in years so my knowledge might not be that useful. I would say no to commercial product work, yes to client portraits, yes to editorial portraits, and yes to editorial fashion. I think you would need to specialize on just film. Likely people would want a scan, not a darkroom print, and you would have to be in a major center like NYC, LA, London or Paris if you spoke french.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I do, but the price I quote makes many clients froth at the mouth

For a film shoot it would be medium format 6x6 using Portra or Velvia.

Probably around $10k TO $15k for an afternoon with prints included.

I still get plenty of takers but also plenty of walkers.

 

[koraks]

My ulterior motive here is for me to justify the local purchase of a beautiful Hasselblad 500 CM system, which is not cheap. If I can look at it as a tool for business, I might have the ability to justify the purchase a bit more.

I think roughly speaking there are two scenarios in which you could justify investing in film and film-dedicated equipment for your purposes:

1: Your reputation as a (high-end) product photographer is already well-established and clients are willing to pay the premium for your services. Whether you shoot film or digital probably doesn't matter to them - they come to you because you get the job done in a way that somehow best suits their interests, and justifies the premium you charge over the competition. Film-based recording here would be almost inconsequential. It doesn't hurt (much), but doesn't help either.

2: By focusing on film-based recording, you attempt to establish a niche in the market and effectively set yourself aside from the competition. You actively use this asset as a marketing tool and find a way to use it as a (sustainable) competitive advantage. This is the route that seems to work for some wedding and portrait photographers. There does appear to be a correlation between the genre/type of photography and the possibilities for having the market accept and even appreciate the premium that is necessary to sustain a film-based workflow. Here, film-based recording is an essential asset and the "raison d'etre" of your business.

Interestingly, neither of the rationales above are very dependent on the experiences of others. In both cases, you'd effectively be distancing yourself from your peers (a.k.a. competitors). In other words: the experience of others in a similar position like you (commercial product photographers) shouldn't matter much (esp. for option 1) - or perhaps it would even be preferable if they are all convinced you're mad and would never even consider such a thing (option 2)

If you end up going this route, I'd be very interested to hear how it pans out. It would be quite interesting to see this develop in today's (and tomorrow's) marketplace.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hi,

My ulterior motive here is for me to justify the local purchase of a beautiful Hasselblad 500 CM system, which is not cheap. If I can look at it as a tool for business, I might have the ability to justify the purchase a bit more. But, I'm also genuinely curious if there are those out there using their medium format setups to still do paid studio work.

Just out of curiosity, to whom do you need to justify the purchase of the Hasselblad?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

only if the customer specifically requests it

 

[Pieter12]

I don't shoot commercially, but I used to be an advertising art director for a big agency, a major client of commercial photographers. Before I retired, I hadn't had a job shot on film since the turn of the century. Most looks can be achieved in post, and digital can be previewed and delivered much quicker than film ever was. I remember one very good, well-known photographer that I contacted who would only shoot film, and he lost the job because of it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not do any commercial work with my Hasselblad or any other cameras.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I don't shoot commercially, but I used to be an advertising art director for a big agency, a major client of commercial photographers. Before I retired, I hadn't had a job shot on film since the turn of the century. Most looks can be achieved in post, and digital can be previewed and delivered much quicker than film ever was. I remember one very good, well-known photographer that I contacted who would only shoot film, and he lost the job because of it.

That's a great point.

Some of the film sims are really good now, and given the cost advantage there has to be some other reason why a client would prefer film.

I think in many cases it is just boasting rights to be able to say we used a traditional film photographer and be able to hold the negatives.

There is no practical reason to prefer film to digital for a typical job.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Hi,

I'm curious how many of you out there are still using your medium format camera's to do professional (ie: paid) photography work for clients in realms such as product or portrait photography?

I feel like there is a niche market here where clients/businesses will pay for the look of film even though the digital option is clearly available. Or perhaps there is a redundancy setup some of you use were you might shoot digital but also add in a few film shots as well as a "bonus" for the client?

My ulterior motive here is for me to justify the local purchase of a beautiful Hasselblad 500 CM system, which is not cheap. If I can look at it as a tool for business, I might have the ability to justify the purchase a bit more. But, I'm also genuinely curious if there are those out there using their medium format setups to still do paid studio work.

If you're running a photography business it's probably tax deductible anyway.

I'd just go with the heart and buy the gear.

You know you want to

 

[Despite_it_all]

Thank you all for the excellent replies. This has been a fascinating sounding board.

I only need to justify the cost to myself and NOT being a professional photographer (though, starting to dabble more and more and potentially angling the hobby to something more), the Hasselblad would only be for myself and my own projects. This should be enough for justification but it's a hefty price tag for something that is just for fun and not bringing in any significant income.
I shoot film but for the work that brings in additional income, I always go digital. The reasons above are all spot on so I don't believe I need to go into why one would go digital over film. But, I do love the look of film and the purpose driven nature of taking the photograph.

But, in the end, the comment above from @guangong seems to nail it for me, "film is no longer economically feasible". It's the truth but maybe there is a way to blend the two mediums or somehow establish a niche in the market (also said above).

 

[gbroadbridge]

Thank you all for the excellent replies. This has been a fascinating sounding board.

I only need to justify the cost to myself and NOT being a professional photographer (though, starting to dabble more and more and potentially angling the hobby to something more), the Hasselblad would only be for myself and my own projects. This should be enough for justification but it's a hefty price tag for something that is just for fun and not bringing in any significant income.
I shoot film but for the work that brings in additional income, I always go digital. The reasons above are all spot on so I don't believe I need to go into why one would go digital over film. But, I do love the look of film and the purpose driven nature of taking the photograph.

But, in the end, the comment above from @guangong seems to nail it for me, "film is no longer economically feasible". It's the truth but maybe there is a way to blend the two mediums or somehow establish a niche in the market (also said above).

Seriously, the look of film is overstated and most folks on the street would not be able to tell the difference unless you pointed out that one of the shots was taken on film. They would probably like the cleaner look of digital anyway.

You can easily get a filmic look simply by using something like Dxo Filmpack and post processing using it.

I've shot film for over 40 years and honestly cannot see any difference with DXO filmpack compared to the real deal. I'm sure some folks will claim they can tell the difference but I think they're making it up.

Buy the Hassy as a collectors piece that you use from time to time, but I wouldn't model a business around it.

 

[Despite_it_all]

Your words cut with accuracy, @gbroadbridge. Very fine points. I had no idea of Dxo Filmpack. That's an eye opener.

... and your right, I do want that gear!

 

[gbroadbridge]

Here's an example.

I took the first shot back in September 1988 using a Ricoh XR-M with the kit lens. - Kodak Gold 400
I took the next with a Canon 5D4 with a 35mm prime in August 2022 and post processed with DXO Photolab and Filmpack to give it a film look.

Apart from the obvious differences due to much later technology and better optics - my eyes get worse but lenses get better, you would be hard pressed to spot which was film.

If I'd known 35 years ago I'd be taking a photo from the same spot I'd have done a better job

{Moderator's clarification: this is the Canon 5D4 image)

(Moderator's clarification: and this is the Kodak Gold 400 image)

 

[Don_ih]

If you're doing product photography and use film, your client may never even know - or care, for that matter - since they will certainly want hi-res digital images, anyway. Scan the film or copy from an SD card. If you get images they like, then you're good.
But I think it would be a very bad idea to pin all your hopes of commercial success on using film.

@gbroadbridge -- your first image there looks way better than the second. I actually would have guessed the first image was digital because of the sharpness and the lens angle (looks wide).

 

[gbroadbridge]

If you're doing product photography and use film, your client may never even know - or care, for that matter - since they will certainly want hi-res digital images, anyway. Scan the film or copy from an SD card. If you get images they like, then you're good.
But I think it would be a very bad idea to pin all your hopes of commercial success on using film.

@gbroadbridge -- your first image there looks way better than the second. I actually would have guessed the first image was digital because of the sharpness and the lens angle (looks wide).

Somehow the images got swapped around.

The first is the digital image with the Canon 5D4 and 35mm f2 prime, the 2nd the original film negative from 35 years ago.
Your eyes do not deceive

 

[Don_ih]

Somehow the images got swapped around.

Good - otherwise, you drastically overpaid for the Canon

 

[Despite_it_all]

Somehow the images got swapped around.

The first is the digital image with the Canon 5D4 and 35mm f2 prime, the 2nd the original film negative from 35 years ago.
Your eyes do not deceive

I had a feeling there was a swap that occurred. The top image is so incredibly razor sharp that one can actually see silhouettes of people in the individual windows. Or, at least, I think I can.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I do, but the price I quote makes many clients froth at the mouth

For a film shoot it would be medium format 6x6 using Portra or Velvia.

Probably around $10k TO $15k for an afternoon with prints included.

I still get plenty of takers but also plenty of walkers.

Why do your clients want film?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thank you all for the excellent replies. This has been a fascinating sounding board.

I only need to justify the cost to myself and NOT being a professional photographer (though, starting to dabble more and more and potentially angling the hobby to something more), the Hasselblad would only be for myself and my own projects. This should be enough for justification but it's a hefty price tag for something that is just for fun and not bringing in any significant income.
I shoot film but for the work that brings in additional income, I always go digital. The reasons above are all spot on so I don't believe I need to go into why one would go digital over film. But, I do love the look of film and the purpose driven nature of taking the photograph.

But, in the end, the comment above from @guangong seems to nail it for me, "film is no longer economically feasible". It's the truth but maybe there is a way to blend the two mediums or somehow establish a niche in the market (also said above).

Do you have to explain it to your wife.

 

[Despite_it_all]

Do you have to explain it to your wife.

Being married for quite some time, I've found that there are always ways to get around that. So... hopefully not!
Great question, though as it is a factor.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Being married for quite some time, I've found that there are always ways to get around that. So... hopefully not!
Great question, though as it is a factor.

Buy the camera for your wife, then borrow it.

 

[Despite_it_all]

Buy the camera for your wife, then borrow it.

This wisdom is from a man who has clearly been married for longer than I have!