How do you incorporate and recoup film costs in your workflow?

[removed account4]

bravo, john

beyond gettting the job,
you need to have a career.
Frost wrote, "...Nothing gold can stay."
Typical New Englander.
The challenge is to build a life in photography, not a job or two.

yep that's a good plan

 

[Larry Bullis]

yep that's a good plan

And not easy to pull off, either.

 

[df cardwell]

"And not easy to pull off, either."

Time is past for a fulltime, photographic profession that lasts for your working life,
but as a part-time endeavor, yes, it can be done.
Like most crafts, it is too demanding to do all year long, every day, and year in, year out.
The sporadic demand, at best, is a factor, and all that has to be balanced to understand what is your goal,
and how it might be met. And, in all that, why LONG TERM business relationships must be built
and maintained, and even the smallest jobs must be given respect and professional attention.

You NEVER know when that small job becomes a regular gig,
or when that little, one time shoot might grow.
(and when that promise of the big score ends up costing YOU)
So, give every one your full attention,
and treat each client scrupulously.
Above all, do the same for yourself.

 

[markbarendt]

So my question is this - how do you incorporate the price of your film and how do you pass that onto the client without them complaining or realising?

Ted,

I think you are starting with the wrong premise; The "Digital is Free" premise.

Not true unless you don't do any post.

I would hazard a guess that if you need to charge more for film processing you are not paying yourself enough to process digital work either.

With that said:

I love shooting film, and I feel more confident that my results will be better for the client when shooting film,

You are probably right, when I have shot digitally and on film in the same job I and my clients tend to like the film better.

Show the client the difference and sell the film work (labor and process) for more, because you can.

People equate cost with quality whether that is true or not.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I have always had a line-item type of invoice for my work, labor, film & processing, polaroid tests, digital CD burns, etc. No materials should be incorporated into a "day rate". If I shoot film and scan to disc, I charge a "labor" charge (a fixed amount) for the scanning time.

If you are trying to "sneak" in film shooting, then you are selling film the wrong way. Film is the premium quality, archival photography medium and should be promoted as such.

 

[Craig]

I've always charged a fee for me to do the shoot, and then I bill my film etc seperately as "consumables". In that I include film, processing, contacts and prints (if any) mileage, my time to drop off the film, pick it up and deliver to the client. I'll generally mark up the film and processing 100% to account for my time to buy it and take it to the lab.

 

[ted_smith]

If you are trying to "sneak" in film shooting, then you are selling film the wrong way. Film is the premium quality, archival photography medium and should be promoted as such.

I quite agree, but the problem that I find is that it's like trying to convince people that Vinyl records are better than CD's. The general public (who are generally my clients at the level I am at currently) just think film is old and digital must be better just because it's newer.

I am doing a dog shoot soon for a section of government (it's another freebie that I'm doing for the police but I'll charge for any prints they want making), and this dilemma is about to hit me again because I just bought a Nikon F5 and want to use it for this shoot. But I'm thinking 10 rolls of film potentially, then got to have it developed, then perhaps pay to have pro quality digital scans to CD at £14 a roll - it's looking like a £100 or so already. So the alternative is to use my Nikon D70s' which won't cost me anything because I've already bought it, and my disk drives, and my computer etc!

Don't get me wrong - I am dying to use film for all my commercial work which is why I started this thread. I just find it hard to work out how to 'justify' it's use to customers who just want the best for as little as possible! Please don't think I'm being anti-film - I'm not at all. I love the stuff. It just seems that commercially I cannot make it work in terms of time and cost. For personal stuff - great - no problems.

Ted

 

[markbarendt]

I quite agree, but the problem that I find is that it's like trying to convince people that Vinyl records are better than CD's. The general public (who are generally my clients at the level I am at currently) just think film is old and digital must be better just because it's newer.

Actually I believe the opposite. I shot a short digital "day rate" wedding on Friday. My last digital contract. During the whole thing they didn't really take the set up seriously. The comment was made over and over "it's only digital".

They had a serious lack of respect for digital, it was too easy and too normal, and that translated into lack of respect for the work I was doing.

I am doing a dog shoot soon for a section of government (it's another freebie that I'm doing for the police but I'll charge for any prints they want making), and this dilemma is about to hit me again because I just bought a Nikon F5 and want to use it for this shoot. But I'm thinking 10 rolls of film potentially, then got to have it developed, then perhaps pay to have pro quality digital scans to CD at £14 a roll - it's looking like a £100 or so already. So the alternative is to use my Nikon D70s' which won't cost me anything because I've already bought it, and my disk drives, and my computer etc!

You are right in that the D70 won't cost you any cash out of pocket, that may be the easiest way on this job.

What though will it cost you in time? What did it cost you to buy all the fancy toys you have? Shouldn't you be paid for that time and investment?

Don't get me wrong - I am dying to use film for all my commercial work which is why I started this thread. I just find it hard to work out how to 'justify' it's use to customers who just want the best for as little as possible! Please don't think I'm being anti-film - I'm not at all. I love the stuff. It just seems that commercially I cannot make it work in terms of time and cost. For personal stuff - great - no problems.

Ted

What can't you do digitally?

Seriously, I'm asking because that's what your clients want to know and they don't know.

For me this isn't too tough.
___
Mr. Client,

I can shoot Fuji Pro 400H, over expose on purpose to get better shadows and subject exposure and still not clip the highlights, film gives me that flexibility. This film has a great color pallet when shot like this that is tough to duplicate in the digital world.

Mr. Client, The digital alternative to doing the same thing is called shooting to save the highlights, this creates a dark image straight out of the camera and requires post processing work to get the subject, you, and the shadow detail back where they should be. This isn't a perfect process and we may end up fighting digital noise in the dark areas.

Mr. Client, my day rate is the same either way.

You have a choice though, you can pay me to do the PS work at $60 an hour (BTW I can normally do a nice job at 20-30 shots per hour) or you can pay for the film and labwork at $40 per 36 shot roll.
___
Ted in this context, film is cheaper.

 

[eddym]

So the alternative is to use my Nikon D70s' which won't cost me anything because I've already bought it, and my disk drives, and my computer etc!

You may have bought and paid for it, but have you amortized its cost yet? And what about the D300 or 700 or D3x you'll need to buy next? The cost of the camera, computer, software, hard drives, UPS's, cd's, dvd's, etc., all have to be charged against whatever job you use them to perform.

 

[phc]

Ted - isn't it a case of horses for courses? I'm not really a commercial photographer (take a look at my work - it's pretty obvious!) but I do own a digital camera for commercial shoots - how can you do anything else in this day and age? The only way you can use film for commercial work is if the client understands that it's going to be more expensive and take longer - the old arguments of either digital or film no longer apply. Digital won.

I love film and use it all the time, but not for commercial shoots. The point of commercial photography is to MAKE MONEY, that's all.

Cheers, P.

 

[markbarendt]

Ted,

Paul makes a great point here, I'd like to take it a step further.

From a business perspective it depends on what product you are offering/selling and your business plan. Business is simply about making money.

Jose Villa out in California offers a "Fine Art" wedding package and business model that would be tough to duplicate in digital. These three links can give you a feel for his business. Maybe they can give you some ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKc6oTvztYE
One of the things that strikes me in the video is that Jose says he would have to hire an extra person to do digital. To me it looks like he's decided that it's more cost effective for him to hire a lab than to hire an employee (or do the processing himself). My view is that that leaves most of his time free to do marketing and shooting, instead of processing. It looks to me like Jose can do his camera work, talk with his clients and prospects, and go home. (The "push" talked about in this video is really just over exposure on purpose)

The question I see for you here is: "if you were "out selling" instead of "in processing"; would you be better off?"

http://filmimpressions.blogspot.com/2008/06/jose-villa-joins-film.html
This link describes Jose's work, he's selling a very specific look, and it's pretty obvious to me why it would be tough to duplicate his work digitally. The highlights would always be trashed or he would always be doing lots of post.

What impresses me most is that he's mostly done when the shutter drops. C41 makes this practical.

http://www.josevillaphoto.com/
This site shows his work.

 

[Steve Smith]

The only way you can use film for commercial work is if the client understands that it's going to be more expensive and take longer - the old arguments of either digital or film no longer apply. Digital won.

I don't agree with this. If you are charging for your time post processing files then there is no reason for digital to be cheaper or quicker.

Then what would I know? I'm not a commercial photographer!



Steve.

 

[Mark Layne]

One can add up costs ad infinitum but the value of a job is what the market will bear
Mark

 

[Steve Smith]

Just a thought. Why not take your D70 and your F5 and do a bit with each?



Steve.

 

[JBrunner]

I just find it hard to work out how to 'justify' it's use to customers who just want the best for as little as possible!

Ted

Hi Ted,

The problem here is not the medium, its your business philosophy, and your client demographic. If you receive satisfaction from freebies for certain clients, or you are building a portfolio, it is completely understandable. If you want to do those freebies on film, you either need to bite the bullet, or build it in to your business model for these types of projects, if you want to break even or at least cover the cost. Many times if I am doing a freebie for something I believe has merit, I tell them that I will do it my way, and that free means my time is free, but they will cover the costs. If they won't do that, then that's the end of it. I'm not going to pay somebody to work, unless I were to get something pretty substantial out of it.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't agree with this. If you are charging for your time post processing files then there is no reason for digital to be cheaper or quicker.

Steve I agree completely.

Every time I've had hell with a job it's been because of post taking me too long.

As soon as I assign a realistic value to my time in post, digital loses.

There are certain situations where digital comes out on top, P&S style with no post, when the publication deadline is in 20 minutes, on site printing at events, or for spray and pray shooting. It's still not cheap, it's just fast, disposable, and it's costs are hidden.

 

[ted_smith]

markbarendt : your example is very good, and actually the kind of response I was looking for. An explanation like that, when required, is very convincing and makes total sense. Thanks.

Its funny, actually, because since starting this thread I have spent mnany hours (9+) post processing the last shoot I did, which was 80% digital with a few rolls of B&W film. What with colour casts, print variations, system crashes etc, I see what you all mean when you say "press the shutter and you're done". I think now I am starting to understand!!!
(

 

[markbarendt]

Ted,

I just hate to see people make the same mistakes I've made.

It is really important to define what comes with every product you offer; every last minute of shooting, every last minute of post, every last penny of cost, every print, every slide show, every roll...

These definitions make pricing and selling easier because both you and the client will understand the products and differences better.

Another Photographer that inspired me was Suzette Nesire, http://www.suzette.com.au/

She's a film shooter too. When I first heard of her she absolutely amazed me. She shoots as many shots as she fells like she needs but typically that's only 1 roll of Kodak Portra 400VC for a portrait shoot, 1 1/2 to 2 rolls for a family or set of siblings. After the shoot it's off to the lab for process, 3 1/2 x 5 proofs, and scanning then she's back to PS but just for blemishes and vignettes as I understand it. Even the proofs are sold separately, packed in a peel and stick book.

As a purely digital shooter at that point in my life, and shooting similar subjects (kids), I had a really tough time wrapping my head around shooting 24 frames and being done. A typical kid shoot was 1-200. Yes, I really was in Spray and Pray mode, I had not learned to trust myself and my skills and to be patient.

markbarendt : your example is very good, and actually the kind of response I was looking for. An explanation like that, when required, is very convincing and makes total sense. Thanks.

Its funny, actually, because since starting this thread I have spent mnany hours (9+) post processing the last shoot I did, which was 80% digital with a few rolls of B&W film. What with colour casts, print variations, system crashes etc, I see what you all mean when you say "press the shutter and you're done". I think now I am starting to understand!!!
(

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Most of my current pricing is based upon placement or production, plus expenses. The expenses can be film, processing, scanning, Polaroids (Fuji-roids?), or any other expendable items, and any assistants needed on the shoot. Expenses could also be any rented gear needed for the production. Overall film and developing would usually be a small part of the overall invoice. If you have a client that might seem to complain or penny pinch on expenses, then simply incorporate it into the overall fees and plan accordingly. Always get an up front deposit, and make sure they know how much of that is non-refundable.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Larry Bullis]

...Many times if I am doing a freebie for something I believe has merit, I tell them that I will do it my way, and that free means my time is free, but they will cover the costs....

Much of my very best work was done on this basis for non-profits. The rewards for doing it frequently turned out to be substantial, but not immediate.

It is very important to take care not to get in over your head with this stuff; there is a tendency, at least for myself, to lose interest part way through if I find myself giving too much. I have to draw a line and stick to it.

I don't contribute lab time; just shooting. If I'd have to pay someone to do labwork, I'll charge at the commercial rates and do it myself. I'm upfront with the client about this. It keeps me from losing interest, because I'm not feeling like I'm falling down a hole.