Is it possible to be a pro and not use digital today?

I don't know, my customers seem to care, starting next weekend, I start my wedding season and have weddings booked every weekend until September, so some on must care, or I would not be so busy!

R.

Shoot a bigger format, Gary, and you'll have no problems lightening up those bags, wrinkles, and spots with a little pencil on the neg. Of course you can do it with brushes and dyes on medium format too.

Roxi331 said:

Gary, that is your problem, you are trying to compete with them, you need to break out your indiviuality as a film photographer and explain to the client why, just as the digital photographer does, I don't even try to compete with them, I have my own nich.

R.

Click to expand...

The way you light has a lot do do with correcting or eliminating blemishes. Also angle and camera height. Subtle changes can do a lot.

you can also use a green filter to remove the redness ...

Some pros around here use both. There are times when digital works great, but when you have a lot of highlights in the scene, film handles it much better. I helped one local professional last fall, she was shooting MF of a hospital interior for posters they needed for a medical hiring fair. She has a fine DSLR but uses the MF for that sort of work.

Doug

The Beauty of the D** is that it is empowering the masses. Giving them the idea that this device will give them the power to compete with the greats. This whole movement will find a breaking point when the market is so super saturated with D** hacks. soon no one will trust johnny come lately with his/her shinney toys. the only people that MONEY will trust are those who have kept the film cameras. and it will become a professional arena and D** will be used for snap shots and low budget crap.

Sorry Venting a little ** kinda getting sick of reading about it**

I say let your work speak for itself and price it to be the quality that it is.

Hello Gary Holliday,

I somehow missed your message earlier, but then saw all the other comments. Hopefully something I can write would give you some ideas.

Gary Holliday said:

I walked into a dodgy high street portrait studio for a nosey and listended to the sales girl speak to a potential client,
"Don't worry it's all done digitally so we can remove any blemishes."

Click to expand...

If someone is selling the gear, rather than their talent or creative vision, then they are little better than a rental place. This happened in the past with strictly film shooters who happened to own lots of gear and try to sell photography because of it. This marketing on gear seems a little more common with D-SLRs and PhotoShop.

Sure, there is a client for this sort of thing, though often the low price consumer. It would be different if that place was charging more than you; they should be priced lower than you because they are doing generic set-ups for portraits. Anyway, to continue . . . . .

Gary Holliday said:

So how can I compete with that? How do I convince a client that she doesn't need those bags under her eyes removed? That other photographer gives me all the photographs on a CD so I can print them out at home. I hate high street studios with a passion.

Click to expand...

This is where a nice printed portfolio comes in, and you need one to sell your portrait work. Of course, you can tell some clients that a certain lens would take years off their face, or a special lighting technique can make them look younger, or something else can make them look thinner. Not every person will want to stay young forever, and would be happy with just a well done portrait that shows them faithfully. Get a Zeiss Softar for the vanity clients, and shoot normally for the rest.

I have also seen post processing and sharpening done for portraits in PhotoShop in which every wrinkle looked amplified . . . terrible stuff, and a misuse of technology. In the film world, there are also films that one should not use for portraits, unless your subject has a really strange sense of humour.

Gary Holliday said:

Any designers will need a digital file as all their software is obviously digital. Bands will want a digital file for their website.

Click to expand...

Okay, so to show that film is fine for that, how about:

http://www.bigtimeoperator.com

Every image in the Gallery there, except from the Pearl Harbor movie, was shot on film by me. Of course they had to be scanned to get there, though you don't necessarily have to be the one doing the scanning. I, or the band, could have paid someone else to scan those images.

Maybe it is different where you are, but lots of bands still like B/W images. Lots of them even like seeing transparencies on a light table. I have done many music CD packages, and several cover photos; even the scanning needs there are not high end.

The only expensive scanning would be if you had very large images going to output lots of posters being printed. When you have such an imaging need for your film, then find a place that does good high end scans.

Gary Holliday said:

We can shoot in film, but we need to be prepared to deliver a digital file if required. Go out and buy a scanner!

Click to expand...

This is a formula for that expense: find out what local places charge, calculate the number of scans needed per year, then figure that amount as your budget. You don't necessarily need to own a scanner, nor do you need to learn how to use a scanner. The problem with you buying a scanner is that then you become the scanning service, and need to charge for that or incorporate it into your billings.

I still think a scanner is a better workflow than any D-SLR, if you go that direction. Your storage of film is simpler than archiving potentially thousands of image files. Just take a look at all the storage issue questions on PDN, and some people even considering getting a server dedicated to their images, then be very glad you are still shooting on film.

Finally, a few inspiring portrait photographers:

http://www.marchauser.com (Note: cheesy music Flash site)

http://www.dunas.com/bgrid.html

http://www.corbijn.co.uk

You sell based on the strength of your images and your creative vision. Your personality will get you work, as will networking. As an old pro photographer once told me: there are many photographers out there less talented than you are, and they are making a living . . . . so go out and create.

Ciao!

Gordon

Ara Ghajanian said:

So, do you think it's possible to be a professional photographer in 2006...

Click to expand...

I don't do nearly as much commercial work as I used to, but all my clients still ask me to shoot film. There has been the occasion that the job didn't require this (simple, fast headshot, etc.), but otherwise all the work I do is still chromes.

Bill

Roxi331 said:

I am a working pro and don't use digital and am doing quite well for myself shooting my 35mm, MF and LF gear, in fact customers put effort out to locate me BECAUSE I do shoot film...

R.

Click to expand...

This is happening to me now, as well, (though I still have to shoot some digital) and I hope, and think it will be an increasing phenomena. Traditional photography now brings with it a certain badge of competence.

Surely it depends on what you are shooting. For step by steps, catalogue shots, small product shots, there's no question: digital is better. Otherwise you'd only be shooting on film; scanning it or getting it scanned; and supplying a file that was no better for the purpose involved (1/2 page or less) than a digitally originated shot, but with a lot more time and expense.

In advertising, the client sometimes insists on digital. "I want it yesterday. If I wanted it today, I'd ask for it tomorrow." Some other clients may be the same.

For just about anything else with significant creative input, it's a matter of personal choice. If I were shooting weddings (which thank God I don't, except half a dozen times in the last 35 years for friends) I'd use B+W or 6 megapixel digital -- the latter because the resolution is so low it loses the wrinkles on the face of the bride's mother...

Fortunately I do very little professional photography nowadays. It's much more fun being an amateur -- for which film wins hands down.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

I feel that, once I have a client's specification for a job, I have a "professional" duty to advise them whether digital or film would be the best option.
I'm prepared to shoot either digital or film and my advice might, for instance, take into account how the finished work was to be presented and the budget.

If a client seeks you out primarily because you use film, that's good. But, if they've come to you for advice, I don't think your prejudice for either should intrude - unless the client asks.
I will, for much the same reasons, pass a potential client on to another pro because I know that my skill base isn't appropriate.

jerry lebens said:

I feel that, once I have a client's specification for a job, I have a "professional" duty to advise them whether digital or film would be the best option.
I'm prepared to shoot either digital or film and my advice might, for instance, take into account how the finished work was to be presented and the budget.

If a client seeks you out primarily because you use film, that's good. But, if they've come to you for advice, I don't think your prejudice for either should intrude - unless the client asks.
I will, for much the same reasons, pass a potential client on to another pro because I know that my skill base isn't appropriate.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Do you bill clients differently when offering digital or film? I ask because there is apparently a lot of post processing ps type work involved that takes the photographer's time as opposed to sending film out and having a lab do that work while the photographer shoots another job. Is one medium more bottom-line costly than the other?

Cheryl Jacobs said:

I'm a prof shooter and only use film -- yes, it's possible. I do portrait work, some fine art work, some commercial work, and the occasional wedding. I'm 100% film capture, and all my work is fiber hand-printed stuff. The only digital that comes into play for me is scanning to put stuff on the web.

-- CJ

Click to expand...

Cheryl.... I love how they all blew right by this and never blinked an eye. I've always had the theory that guys don't hear women... but I think they may even have a hard time reading what they write! haha Geesh! :rolleyes:



When I saw this post, Cheryl was the first person that came to mind.

jovo said:

That's interesting. Do you bill clients differently when offering digital or film? I ask because there is apparently a lot of post processing ps type work involved that takes the photographer's time as opposed to sending film out and having a lab do that work while the photographer shoots another job. Is one medium more bottom-line costly than the other?

Click to expand...

Talking to a couple of local pros I have learned that when you get into portraiture and weddings a lot of the cost savings from switching to digital is eaten up by time spent in post processing. In some cases clients have unreal expectations for the price they are paying based on what they have heard or read about image manipulation/enhancement in photoshop.

The other problem they have is that before digital costs were consistent between photographers. Everyone pretty much paid the same for processing, film, paper, etc in your market. Now there is a lot more variation in pricing depening on the workflow and hardware being used.

Digital has also led to more fragmentation and specialization of some markets.
I met a couple of guys out of college who bought 4 high end DSLRs, some lights and high end printers and lots of computer power. They then went to every every school, youth group, YMCA, and sports club in the area and basically undercut all the pros who had done sports and team photography for years and got close to 80% of the market. They could produce very slick presnetations that would have an image of the plyaer, team, logo, amount of text, etc in a variety of sizes and combinations. If the parent had imges they would include those in the final piece. Very slick, very efficient. it also was not that they were that much less expensive then others, they just offered a huge variety of options to customers and very quick turn around.

On the other hand there was a guy in Kansas City who did weddings but his bread and butter was wedding and formal portraits done with an 11x14 and platinum. He charged upwards of $3000 for a sitting and one or two finished pieces.

So I guess it is more important to recognize what the market requires for tools and methods rather then trying to fit everything into either the digital or traditional camp.

In my opinion as a pro you have to define your product and market yourself. You could make a living shooting a Holga or an 11x14 view camera.

It's all about how you market yourself to your potential clientele. I shoot film, retouch negatives, then prints, all miraculously without the use of photoshop. I print fiber based old school prints and matt and frame them.

None of my clients give a rats ass if I shoot digital, glass plates, polaroids or whatever. All they care about is that they get what I say I will give them.


Michael

Wow! What a great response to my original post. This forum is like having a few hundred experienced mentors.

The responses I've gotten here have made me rethink what it is to be a commercial photographer. Pardom me, but in this tiny market in Rhode Island I've come in contact with quite a few photographers who are willing to do anything to pay for their over-inflated rents and computer upgrades. Many of the photographers I've come in contact with are "jack of all trades" types. I did a website for one who had at least 6 categories covered (i.e. architectural, portrait, food, product, glamour, editorial), but had no personal style. These types will do anything to get the client. They can have those types of clients. We should be striving to get clients who trust our vision, not our subscriptions to a particular technology. What I'm realizing from these posts is basically what Michael said above "define your product and market yourself".

Thanks for all the informative posts so far,
Ara

Costs are a large issue, and marketing is a part of that. While Rhode Island might be a very small market, that might dictate a jack-of-all-trades approach, there is no reason to restrict your work to your area. If you are busy and satisfied with a small local market, then all is good. However, if you are looking for more work, or worried about future changes to your local market, then consider marketing yourself outside of your local area.

I split my time between two large cities in the US, mostly because neither has been enough of a local market, even though they are large cities. As Michael stated about defining your product, another aspect is that you also become a brand.

A different approach is carving a niche, which is what Cheryl Jacobs has done (yes, Jeanette, I noticed). There are photographers noted for a very particular style and approach, often more specialized. This could be seen as the opposite of the jack-of-all-trades, and might be a way towards greater longevity in this profession.

Costs and fees are another issue. Learning from doing motion pictures and video documentary work, those crews own the lens and rent the cameras and lighting. While it is good to own some lighting, and some cameras to keep those lenses busy, rental is something those new to the profession might find useful. Got a client that really wants you to use digital, and you don't want to turn down the job, then rent a body or back that fits your lenses; you might even shoot some of the job on film, have them look at how good film can render subjects and scenes, and persuade them that film can meet their needs. I have done this a few times with insistent clients, and the funny thing was that they liked the film images better; though that might have been because I charged extra for the digital back and computer time.

It is a tough to factor multiples or profit margins, but some photographers find out that digital capture is more expensive. Others try to lower cost undercutting, then find someone else undercutting them later, and they did not build in enough profits to go to the next upgrade. While the undercutting might have been good for initial profits, some soon find that disappearing. Lots of these type of discussions on PDN forums. The example that surprised me the most was an ASMP event with Seth Resnick, in which he comments about having over $100k of equipment, and needing to turn over and replace most of it every 18 to 24 months. I later read an article by him in which he discussed costs of using film in the past compared to cost of using only D-SLRs, and the numbers were lower for using film, even if one had a scanning and computer set-up. So based on my experiences and number crunching, film is more profitable for me; I think that is an excellent reason to stick with using film.

Ciao!

Gordon

jovo said:

That's interesting. Do you bill clients differently when offering digital or film? I ask because there is apparently a lot of post processing ps type work involved that takes the photographer's time as opposed to sending film out and having a lab do that work while the photographer shoots another job. Is one medium more bottom-line costly than the other?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't have different rates - I charge according to the amount of time the job takes and I make another charge for materials and other expenses etc. I guess I'm fairly experienced at this because my initial "estimate" usually matches the final bill.
I adopted this method a few years ago after having a few clients who would ask for extra services during a job and then query the final costs. This way I can say, as soon as this sort of request arises, "that will take ** hours longer and cost ** more" - the client then has the option of giving me the go ahead or not and I don't end up frustrated or out of pocket.

As far as my work goes, yes, film is more expensive. A shoot for a clothing magazine, that I used to shoot on film and I now shoot digitally, used to cost iro £300 - £400 more in medium format film and polaroid. After the shoot, the mag would then send the transparencies off for scanning and I assume that this added to their costs too. By showing that I could produce the appropriate quality of work digitally I saved my client iro £500/month.
I try to produce digital images that don't need lots of PP, just as I did with film. With this particular client, the graphic designers at the magazine now work happily from my original digital files and I don't do any PP (what's the point of messing up my own digital files when I know that, whatever I've done, the magazine will go and mess about with them again anyway?).

There are jobs that involve PP but, again, I make certain that the client understands this, and the charges, too. PP requires me to use my professional skills and so it costs the client the same as shooting.
Lastly, I no longer spend so much time commuting across town to the lab.

Gary Holliday said:

I think my final print is as individual as I can get and no tacky high street studio can compete with what I produce. But does Miss Spot on her Nose care?

Click to expand...

All you need to do is retouch the negative (best if it's MF or LF) and you can crank out as many perfect prints as Ms. Thing's pimply little heart desires...

Ara Ghajanian said:

Many of the photographers I've come in contact with are "jack of all trades" types. I did a website for one who had at least 6 categories covered (i.e. architectural, portrait, food, product, glamour, editorial)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know the feeling. In some ways I consider myself very ecclectic in my personal photography habits. However for the VERY small percentage of my stuff that I have shown to the public tends to be either architectural or rural (like cows, tractors etc.) But for personal junk I take whatever strikes my fancy.

Of course not. That is why people like Michael A. Smith, Paul Caponigro and Paula Chamlee have put all their old camera gear on eBay and used the funds to buy Kodak Easy Share cameras.

well, no I don't think it's possible to be a general commercial photographer, or do editorial work, or probably portrait/wedding for that matter without some digital skills--unless you have established that niche market for yourself already.

I say this as someone who is salaried (thank god) and still employed as a film shooter & printer. but to be honest, I had to learn on the job how to use p-shop (back in 3.5), how to use a 1.3 mp Nikon slr, and how to scan etc. I did it because the writing was on the wall--no matter how many arguments can be made about cost, longevity etc--the writing is on the wall. I intend to work out my 15 yrs until retirement--probably in one of the last stable areas of the profession--a salaried, work for hire photographer.

We just got a D2X---nice studio camera if you can live without movements. Nice file size. Great handling. So-so, events camera, but I like the high speed crop. The 17-55 we got with it is a dream. In the small bag I carry to work with me everyday? I carry an SRT 101 with a 45mm lens, and a few rolls of FP4 and HP5. Sometimes I use a medium format Fuji, other times I carry a Pen FT.

I see the rest of my years as this--more personal use of film & paper, less at work. It's not what I wanted, not what I advocate, but I'm realistic. It only took me about ten years to get around to that.

Is it better, easier, quicker? No--it's all about the same, digital is even more laborious in some ways--less enjoyable. Sometimes it's more convenient though. Sometimes it doesn't matter--those times, like a grip & grin? It's great. Delightful--who wants to shoot chrome & b/w, process it and then bust your ass to deliver the goods on a deadline for a check passing?

so--you gotta be realistic. if you cut yourself off, you have to have something to fill the void. personally--as a person who was dragged into it by neccessity?--I don't see how anyone can make a living as a general photographer without some digital interaction.

There are lots of film only shooters left. Some that still only deliver final prints...no digi at all. I'm all film. But in my opinion, unless film works specifically for your "look" and you are in a position to insist on it, then digi is almost a necessity. At least in commercial work and smaller commercial markets. Budgets are tighter, people are stretched thinner, drop days are two days off, etc etc. And with the price of film and processing these days vs the price of hard drives and computers, most guys I know can't get the profit margins to lean in favor of film. At least if there is any sort of volume. And they bill the same for film and digi...actually maybe a bit more for the digital with all the post processing/contact sheet/burning fees/digi tech. Like I said, I shoot film. But it works for me and who I work for. I feel with most shooters that go digital it's for them, not for the client. Once you get a workflow down, and if you play it smart, it makes jobs smoother and faster and it also can make you more money.

You'll always hear two camps: it's art, do what you want, sell your vision, they're all tools. And camp two: it's a business, you need to compete, digital is necessary to compete... In the end, it lands someplace in a gray area in between, and area that can only be dictated by you personally, your market, the particular client, what feels good in your hands, and maybe just what you stumble upon by accident.

I just spent the weekend in LA with a friend is a photo editor/producer for a "sports/wellness" magazine.

She prefers film and pushes "chromes" whenever she can get them.

She also stated that most of the photogs are now renting all of the equipment except the lighting, then they bill the magazine for the rentals.

Roteague
"I think the business is changing, but there are photographers who make a living with just film, but even that number is getting fewer and fewer. We live in a McDonalds society, we want everything now, even if the quality is less."
-------------------
Business is not changing, just new kind of business, on the similar matter is now around.

Film users are not fewer and fewer. Many in image making business used photography just because it was the only choice for them for inteligence to be "photographer" is not requirement, just $100. Now they got even and easier and less brain wear stuff.

We do not live in McDonald society. Who eat that? homeless, employed woman that do not value home life, family, and cooking, single man on the run, ...

And I-pod is around but still people like to see violin, TV is around but people still pays to see it in live, …

Photographer will never ever quit film, or better to say photography. Digital imaging can be mixed for some jobs, but to photographer photography is his life. I use beside photography sometimes and painting, sometimes graphical art, sometimes digital imaging, sometimes drawings, but I am photographer and I advertise myself as photographer, but if someone ask that is different story. Honestly the largest portion of time for the same money go to digital imaging, and I always consider working on it is for the people without hearth, love, and passion. People just use it without thinking, it is well marketed stuff, like I-pod that you can save on it 500000 songs and it is the reason that cost more.
Nearly everyone like more smell of bakery factory then stinky McDonald, BUT marketing and advert. can make a lot with stupid people.

And to add: today are no less film users that 30 years ago. Just the matter is in definition who are film users?

I think it is possible to stay in photography business without using digital imaging. Just one have to advertise his job as PHOTOGRAPHER and do not papy an idea about millions...

www.LEICA-R.com