Analog experience in the commercial world

arigram · Apr 21, 2008

In the commercial photography world, fashion, advertising, etc, does experience with film cameras and the darkroom matter? Will a photographer be considered more skilled if he knows how to use fully manual cameras, develop film, make wet prints, even if asked to do everything digitally, or is simply just ignored?
It seems that in those sectors, the photographer just presses the shutter in the fully automatic camera while the art director, photoshop guy and assistants do all the real work.
Do modern commercial photographers know their fstops and exposure techniques?
Does analog experience give you any sort of advantage?

jd callow · Apr 21, 2008

My clients all want digital images and they all wanted to see my portfolio or needed to know that I had the skills/eye/creativity to do the job. There are a few publications still standing that prefer transparencies and the odd client who wants something only film can do, but no one has ever asked me if I could operate a manual camera of if I knew how to develop or print my film. They have asked if I could remove the fire hydrant in PS or add a light or some other similar digital only item.

Up until recently I only shot film and the use of digital in more recent work has, I believe benefited by that experience and knowledge. Film to me is an artistic medium, commercial work is about production first and art second, 3rd or even further down the list if it exists at all.

removed account4 · Apr 21, 2008

the only clients that i have that care whether or not
i can operate a manual camera and do wet darkroom work
are those who need archival prints. while they aren't commecial clients
( advertising &C ), but archives/ library of congress/ HABS/HAER ...
that being said, some of the states now, ask if i can do d- and
inky prints ...

oh well ...

SuzanneR · Apr 21, 2008

There are still a lot of commercial shooters using film, and I would say the better ones certainly know their f-stops and shutter speeds. And understand the properties of different films. I think the best ones would know there way around photoshop, too... but not to "fix" things, but to use it as a creative tool. And I'd agree with John, knowledge of film, processing, and the darkroom will lend itself well to mastering photoshop. And knowledge is a good thing when you want to make it in as competitive a world as commercial photography is.

JBrunner · Apr 21, 2008

In the commercial world, the clients have for the most part been conditioned by marketing. Most erroneously believe anything with the word digital in it must be the best because thats what the salesmen have been beating their heads with. It's almost to the point of brainwashing. OTO, beyond that, they largely don't worry about the tech at all, and assume you as a professional will do what is needed and best for their project.

However, many of them are now used to leaving a studio session with their shots on a disk, ready to go to the graphics people. If you have a project with them, that is just begging for film, they need to know there is some turnaround.

FWIW Arri, I have never gotten a job off my resume, not once, they simply aren't interested in where you went to school or what camera you use. They want to see the portfolio. If it has tear sheets of famous people, and hopefully, a shot like what they want (no matter how simple or stupid) they will hire you. If you wish to be successful as a commercial photographer, knowing what you are doing, no matter the medium, is still very relevant. Non of my pure digital qualified competition shoots on "auto" They mostly know what they are doing, shoot RAW, and know how to light. We all face competition from the "button idiots" but you generally don't want the clients that are happy with that level of work, and it trades on price alone.

Food, and anything black and white are the easiest up-sells to film.

arigram · Apr 21, 2008

Iw'll try to write while I am burning with fever.
It sounds dissapointing.
I have close to twenty years experience with computer graphics, yeah
when I was a kid I had a C64 with a graphic tablet.
I bought DigiView for my Amiga and had the most powerful Amiga in Greece for sure.
Before Photoshop 3.5 I used many other graphic programs, 2D, 3D, animation.
I studied Computer Animation and Multimedia in Pittsburgh but gave up on my "Dream" to
be an animator because it sucked.
After Photoshop I have been learning FOSS programs. I am skilled in many.
But I don't want to do that.
I like film and my Hasselblads and BW and everything.
I though I could curve my own destiny, make art with my photography,
even if it was fashion and advertising and distance myself from the digital cheapo masses.
I see their work in greek magazines and photo stores and its awful.
Oh well.
I guess there is no place for me in the real world.

Ian Grant · Apr 21, 2008

arigram said:
I guess there is no place for me in the real world.

Have you considered you are in the real world and the rest are in a sea of oblivion.

Ian

arigram · Apr 21, 2008

Ian Grant said:
Have you considered you are in the real world and the rest are in a sea of oblivion.

Ian

Well, they are making money and I am not, so I guess its monopoly money.

JBrunner · Apr 21, 2008

Arri,

It's not the equipment they use, and if it is a awful as you say, it's not the skill set. So, you have the skill set and the equipment, so you have to ask yourself what is it?

I can tell you, but you already know. We've talked about it. So go do it. Maybe you'll get Greek hate mail, and some monopoly money.

Troy · Apr 27, 2008

Recently I've been offering the "traditional" experience to folks for whom I make portraits. I've gotten some good bites from people who want to set themselves apart from the digi-snapping masses. I sell them the square Hassleblad, or vintage press camera, or ultimate 8x10 experience. They seem to enjoy the attention and the process and the thought that they're getting something most people aren't – a handmade object, like a fine piece of cabinetry.

That being said, it's not exactly commercial work and it's not exactly making me rich either.

rorye · Apr 27, 2008

It's the connection between your eye and your brain that a good client is paying for.
Not the medium you use.

Troy · Apr 27, 2008

rorye said:
It's the connection between your eye and your brain that a good client is paying for.
Not the medium you use.

That's not true in this case. They're definitely buying the experience of sitting for an "oldsy-timesy" and classy traditional process *because that's how I market it. I'm not just clicking digital snaps, I'm connecting them with a historic process. Just wait till I learn wetplate! 8)

It's akin to someone buying handmade furniture instead of Ikea. They'll pay more because a craftsman made it. That being said, most of my business is digital, but some of it isn't. And I can charge more for the handmade stuff.

rorye · Apr 27, 2008

I totally get that Troy, and agree. And the last thing I want to do is debate dig vs film, I much prefer film. It's just that I take LF portraits etc., but that doesn't invalidate a portrait that I make with a digital camera. In my world it's not a snap just because it's not a film camera.

GraemeMitchell · Apr 27, 2008

I know lots of commercial and editorial photogs who shoot digital, some who shoot film, and some who use both. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the work they produce. People never ask me what I shoot, what format, what anything.

I use digi if the time-line for dropping finals is like 24hrs out, and it often is, but even then the client doesn't request it. I make that call. B/c I think when working commercially you need to pick your battles wisely.

Troy · Apr 27, 2008

rorye said:
I totally get that Troy, and agree. And the last thing I want to do is debate dig vs film, I much prefer film. It's just that I take LF portraits etc., but that doesn't invalidate a portrait that I make with a digital camera. In my world it's not a snap just because it's not a film camera.

I agree, one is not more valid than the other (film/digital). I'm just saying I've had some marketing success flogging the film "experience." It's just a case of selling something no one else around here is offering. Because, as you state, the end result of film/digital is the same, what sets me apart is how I make a portrait client feel about what they're getting. With my large format film packages they feel special, and that's worth some dough.

rorye · Apr 27, 2008

Yep, I'd surely pay more for one of your tea stained cyanotypes than I would for an inkjet
Best,
R

JBrunner · Apr 28, 2008

rorye said:
Yep, I'd surely pay more for one of your tea stained cyanotypes than I would for an inkjet
Best,
R

This is so true, but the OP is talking about commercial work. Since it goes to press, the medium has to be sold purely on visual merit, after it becomes a 4 color ink job. No creative director gives a crap about the experience. He just wants to keep his job, and maybe do a little star f***ing.

Hughjb · Apr 28, 2008

My experience is that a lot hinges in what level of experience of the art director who is commisioning the job has with either medium and the way in which the shot will be use.

If the image is going be place as a small add then digital will probably suffice, if on the other hand they are doing mural size print then a large format is prefereable.

Hugh

panastasia · Apr 28, 2008

My experience is similar to what jd callow describes. I'd like to add to this that I shot digital in full manual mode when on assignment for a book publishing company. My experience with the manual film cameras seems to show in the final results. I knew this made a difference each time I was offered a new assignment. Digital - on auto - is hit and miss and if you only have one opportunity to get the shot, it's a miss (for optimum quality) more often then not. They looked for quality when paying $200/photo.

I'm no longer doing that kind of work because I went back to doing engineering and design work at my day job. I remember that the publishing company preferred digital image files, film - scanned when used - was not preferred anymore, unless that's all that was available at the deadline.

Paul

tomonator60 · Apr 28, 2008

Your knowledge base will help you do the job but it won't help you get it

Your experience and knowledge base with multiple formats and mediums will help you do the job but it won't help you get it. The process should be the photographers business, keep it that way, the client only cares about than the results.

If you were going to hire a carpenter to replace a stair case in your house would you care what kind of saw he used or that when it was finished it would go to the second floor? What would you want to see before you hired him or her, maybe another stair case or two in a similar setting. What you'd you think if he started talking about his tools rather than your project?

Clients more often than not will hire you because you can show them a sample of what they are looking for before it is on their dime. Don't be in love with any one tool, just use the right tool for the job. After all you could probably drive a nail with a pair of pliers but if a hammers available you may want to use it.

arigram · Apr 28, 2008

Staying with analog was probably the biggest mistake I've done with my life.
I would have dropped photography too, but I can't really do anything else, I am quite useless.

JBrunner · Apr 28, 2008

arigram said:
Staying with analog was probably the biggest mistake I've done with my life.
I would have dropped photography too, but I can't really do anything else, I am quite useless.

Bullshit on both. You are truly talented. Get out there and pimp yourself. That's all that's missing.

panastasia · Apr 28, 2008

I, occasionally, restore/recreate old photos on fiber paper for archival quality, usually from old B&W snapshots. I do this for a fee and it's 98% analog work requiring copy negatives. I also hand-color some of them and do the frame fitting. It's actually a small business now that I think of it, and I have fun doing it. Be creative with ideas! You have the talent for sure. Jason is right, you need to let people know what you do or nothing happens.

Paul

Troy · Apr 29, 2008

rorye said:
Yep, I'd surely pay more for one of your tea stained cyanotypes than I would for an inkjet
Best,
R

Thanks man. That's nice of you to say.

As for the carpenter analogy. I own a very old house so I end up talking to lots of other people with very old houses. Some of them, with money, hire carpenters who know traditional methods of working over the average "rip and tear" types. I'm spending extra money myself replacing the cedar shingle siding rather than slapping on vinyl. Why? Well, among other things, it has something to do with valuing the work of the original carpenters who build my house in the 1870s... maybe even honoring their work.

I value an object made by a living, breathing creature with a soul. And I think some of my portrait clients do, too.

But like I said, all my commercial work is digital, digital, digital. Besides, it all looks pretty bad in CMYK on newsprint at the bottom of a bird cage. 8)

JBrunner · Apr 29, 2008

Troy said:
I value an object made by a living, breathing creature with a soul. And I think some of my portrait clients do, too.

Well said. This is one of the simple best expressions in support of traditional work I have ever come across.

Analog experience in the commercial world

arigram

jd callow

Moderator

removed account4

SuzanneR

Moderator

JBrunner

Moderator

arigram

Ian Grant

arigram

JBrunner

Moderator

Troy

rorye

Troy

rorye

GraemeMitchell

Troy

rorye

JBrunner

Moderator

Hughjb

panastasia

tomonator60

arigram

JBrunner

Moderator

panastasia

Troy

JBrunner

Moderator

Analog experience in the commercial world

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency