One Reason Why Film Rules

markbarendt · Dec 1, 2012

TooManyShots said:
You make it to sound like film photography is making a come back and driving out all those wedding photographers shooting with their 20mp+ full frame camera. The reality is the opposite. This is the first time I heard about the 1k wedding market is shrinking. With today's economy, 1k for most couples for wedding photography can be too much. Don't believe me? Go look up Criag List for the $500 wedding photographers. Of course, if your typical clients are making more than 6 figure annual incomes, you would probably don't care too much about the normal folks. To generalize your unusual experiences to the general photography market is just wrong. Just out of touch with the reality.

Sorry TooManyShots, PMK-25 is right, you are missing the point.

It's not that anybody doesn't care about the normal people and it is fine to be charitable but in business one must make a profit. $500 weddings are charity work with free a dinner, even $1000 weddings can't support a business, you simply can't do enough of them to pay the bills and yourself a living wage. (There simply aren't enough weekends in a year.)

I don't think anybody is suggesting that film is displacing digital. What I might suggest though is that wedding shooters chasing the latest, greatest, biggest, and baddest (film or otherwise) are probably spending way too much on their tools and that is always a bad business decision.

Profession Photographers of America puts out info on the norms of the industry in terms of cost and whole bunches of other great things in support of pros. I'd suggest that you pony up and join PPA if you want a real idea of what works and what doesn't.

http://www.ppa.com/

TooManyShots · Dec 1, 2012

markbarendt said:
Sorry TooManyShots, PMK-25 is right, you are missing the point.

It's not that anybody doesn't care about the normal people and it is fine to be charitable but in business one must make a profit. $500 weddings are charity work with free a dinner, even $1000 weddings can't support a business, you simply can't do enough of them to pay the bills and yourself a living wage. (There simply aren't enough weekends in a year.)

I don't think anybody is suggesting that film is displacing digital. What I might suggest though is that wedding shooters chasing the latest, greatest, biggest, and baddest (film or otherwise) are probably spending way too much on their tools and that is always a bad business decision.

Profession Photographers of America puts out info on the norms of the industry in terms of cost and whole bunches of other great things in support of pros. I'd suggest that you pony up and join PPA if you want a real idea of what works and what doesn't.

http://www.ppa.com/

The point which is greatly missed is that everybody has to start from somewhere and paying their dues, from the bottom up. It takes years and maybe luck to become established. Or in most cases, things do not work out. You don't just shoot a 5k wedding just because you shoot with film. When people talk about the "exceptions," they are leaving out the "disclaimers" as well. What about Gary Fong?? Is he still shooting weddings? When he first started, he was charging some ridiculously low price on weddings. Or maybe he finds it more profitable to teach classes how to become pros and selling his light diffusers.

PKM-25 · Dec 1, 2012

TooManyShots said:
The point which is greatly missed is that everybody has to start from somewhere and paying their dues, from the bottom up. It takes years and maybe luck to become established. Or in most cases, things do not work out. You don't just shoot a 5k wedding just because you shoot with film. When people talk about the "exceptions," they are leaving out the "disclaimers" as well. What about Gary Fong?? Is he still shooting weddings? When he first started, he was charging some ridiculously low price on weddings. Or maybe he finds it more profitable to teach classes how to become pros and selling his light diffusers.

To your credit, this is the problem for newcomers these days...that ladder no longer works in most cases. Whenever I get asked what it takes to break in, besides telling them to find a great niche, I say I am not sure because it is like winning American Idol, hundreds of thousands of people in line think they could be the next one, then they sing before the judges, sound horrible, start to cry and you just want to slap the people in their lives ( Flickr circle jerks of mutual praise ) that lead them to believe they were good enough when they clearly are not...

So professional photography these days is less like a job you intern for and move up the ladder but more like trying out for American Idol...get in line but don't expect much. But if you are good and you realize just how much of a sacrifice and life change it is, go for it, you never know till you try...

markbarendt · Dec 1, 2012

TooManyShots said:
The point which is greatly missed is that everybody has to start from somewhere and paying their dues, from the bottom up. It takes years and maybe luck to become established. Or in most cases, things do not work out. You don't just shoot a 5k wedding just because you shoot with film. When people talk about the "exceptions," they are leaving out the "disclaimers" as well. What about Gary Fong?? Is he still shooting weddings? When he first started, he was charging some ridiculously low price on weddings. Or maybe he finds it more profitable to teach classes how to become pros and selling his light diffusers.

Sorry, still not getting it.

The exceptions ARE the ones that succeed, 9 of 10 business starts fail.

Also, I'm not suggesting film will make you or break you as a pro. I'm suggesting that simple competency with your tools, some creative marketing, skillful salesmanship, hard work, and good business practices and plans, will get you a lot further than 10-years of work trying to make a living competing with the weekend warriors in the $500 market.

Another example.

http://joebuissink.smallfolio.com/

As I remember the story Joe decided he wanted to be a wedding photographer as a second career, he was already quite competent with a camera, decided what market he wanted to serve, came up with a plan, gave away his first wedding jobs to people at the low end the market he wanted to serve, marketed like heck at those weddings to build his prospect base, worked all his connections, and built his business without ever doing a wedding in the $500 market.

Gary Fong, by his own admission was a really lousy photographer when he started, but he knew what he wanted to do and made a system and refined it to make buy-ups the norm. When he sold a $500 wedding deal his norm when all done with that client was three times that, $1,500 not $500. Like Joe he worked his tail off to find the prospects that could move him up the food chain too.

Their creativity in marketing, salesmanship, BS, schmoozing, and business sense made them what they are, not their photographic skills or the technology they used. Same for Jose and Johnathan.

kevs · Dec 1, 2012

Diapositivo said:
The fact is that these days using film in itself is rather the exception than the norm.
The case may be that in the wedding photography sector the work produced in film is percentually* higher than in general photography. Maybe film is used in 3% of general photography and 5% of wedding photography.
<snip>
* How do you bloody say "percentually" in English without having the spell checker scream?

"The case may be that in the wedding photography sector the percentage of work produced in film is higher than in general photography."

hth,
kevs

JBrunner · Dec 1, 2012

TooManyShots said:
The point which is greatly missed is that everybody has to start from somewhere and paying their dues, from the bottom up. It takes years and maybe luck to become established. Or in most cases, things do not work out. You don't just shoot a 5k wedding just because you shoot with film. When people talk about the "exceptions," they are leaving out the "disclaimers" as well. What about Gary Fong?? Is he still shooting weddings? When he first started, he was charging some ridiculously low price on weddings. Or maybe he finds it more profitable to teach classes how to become pros and selling his light diffusers.

It isn't luck. It's talent, hard work, shameless self promotion, and the willingness to demand what you are actually worth. I don't shoot low wage stuff because it damages my brand. An upstart may need to do some things to build a portfolio, but that should be over as soon as possible. Cheap jobs involve ugly clients and crap locations, hardly what portfolios are made of. Furthermore, my clients don't care what I shoot on, it's me they want, my results they want, not a workflow or format.

None of the things you cite pays a living wage. I don't know my clients average income, but I do know they perceive what I do as highly valuable.

You are confusing the part of the market you have been exposed to with the whole market. There is more going on than you think.

TooManyShots · Dec 1, 2012

markbarendt said:
Sorry, still not getting it.

The exceptions ARE the ones that succeed, 9 of 10 business starts fail.

Also, I'm not suggesting film will make you or break you as a pro. I'm suggesting that simple competency with your tools, some creative marketing, skillful salesmanship, hard work, and good business practices and plans, will get you a lot further than 10-years of work trying to make a living competing with the weekend warriors in the $500 market.

Another example.

http://joebuissink.smallfolio.com/

As I remember the story Joe decided he wanted to be a wedding photographer as a second career, he was already quite competent with a camera, decided what market he wanted to serve, came up with a plan, gave away his first wedding jobs to people at the low end the market he wanted to serve, marketed like heck at those weddings to build his prospect base, worked all his connections, and built his business without ever doing a wedding in the $500 market.

Gary Fong, by his own admission was a really lousy photographer when he started, but he knew what he wanted to do and made a system and refined it to make buy-ups the norm. When he sold a $500 wedding deal his norm when all done with that client was three times that, $1,500 not $500. Like Joe he worked his tail off to find the prospects that could move him up the food chain to.

Their creativity in marketing, salesmanship, BS, schmoozing, and business sense made them what they are, not their photographic skills or the technology they used. Same for Jose and Johnathan.

Heheheh.....next time when you need to cite an exceptional example, just put up a disclaimer saying that "it may only work for him or her." And not for everyone. So that we can avoid using this exceptional example to setting a new standard in the market. I am getting tired of this discussion here. Oh, I am getting it all for sure. FYI, according to Wiki, Gary Fong was charging $150 for shooting weddings and using his room (parent's house) as his office. That was his day rate and back in the film days. According to his biography, he didn't even have a goal in life. He believes that this Zen approach to life and his career in photography allows him to make millions. I am sure there are a lot of Gary Fongs in these day and age too.

markbarendt · Dec 1, 2012

Last I heard Gary Fong had made a really good living for quite a few years, saved a lot of his pennies along the way, and retired. He simply didn't need to work work any more and weddings really are work, even if you enjoy it, so he retired.

The light doohickey business and seminars was something he was doing on the side so to speak, it was nothing near approaching a full time job for him.

markbarendt · Dec 1, 2012

Not trying to discourage you TooManyShots. Simply speaking from hard won lessons, hate to see anyone make the mistakes I made.

Just an FYI, Joe is far from the only one who has made that general idea work, albeit the magnitude of his success is larger than most, as was Fong's.

Local lady raised her kids, then when the kids were in HS she got a job at a local "old tyme" photo studio to get out of the house, she decided she liked photography went to schools and seminars and learned the business. Most importantly she had always been active in the community, kids school stuff, volunteering and more. When she leapt out on her own she went straight to $2,000 base price weddings and marketed directly through her social network. Last I heard she was averaging about $5,000. I think she's been in business 8 years now.

lxdude · Dec 2, 2012

TooManyShots said:
Heheheh.....next time when you need to cite an exceptional example, just put up a disclaimer saying that "it may only work for him or her." And not for everyone.

No one ever said or implied that it would work for everyone. I and others countered your claim that film "is not happening" in wedding photography, and criticized it as overly broad. When you changed your reference point to "the general market", you got no argument to your claim. Is everyone who is not chasing the bottom or lower middle of the market "exceptional" to you? A pro can do quite well and not be at "the top of the food chain", and there are those in that group who use film, or who could benefit by using it.

So that we can avoid using this exceptional example to setting a new standard in the market.

Absolutely no one has attempted to do that. Maybe you have just misread or misunderstood their words. Maybe you don't realize clearly that both Jason Brunner and Dan Bayer (PKM-25) are people who have been professionals for a long time and have broad experience, much more than some spec work and bicycle races. Argue all you want, but they have far more credibility.

I am getting tired of this discussion here.

Sorry it hasn't been to your liking.

Oh, I am getting it all for sure. FYI, according to Wiki, Gary Fong was charging $150 for shooting weddings and using his room (parent's house) as his office. That was his day rate and back in the film days. According to his biography, he didn't even have a goal in life. He believes that this Zen approach to life and his career in photography allows him to make millions. I am sure there are a lot of Gary Fongs in these day and age too.

They are out there, but it would likely be tougher for him now. There are a lot more people now who fancy themselves photographers because their camera takes nice pictures, who get in it for a little cash and the fun of calling themselves pros. Of course there are talented and sharp people who will not be on that level for long, if at all.

georg16nik · Dec 2, 2012

TooManyShots said:
.... Of course, if your typical clients are making more than 6 figure annual incomes, you would probably don't care too much about the normal folks. To generalize your unusual experiences to the general photography market is just wrong....

You are looking at the world while holding the telescope from the "easy" side.

There is no such thing as general photography market.

There are easy to get into (and regret it) markets - in that market falls the target group, to whom camera manufacturers sell dreams.
There are harder to get into markets, sorta boutique niches - in that market falls "real craft "artists and those with business knowledge.

When activities are difficult, only people who have the strongest stake will participate.
Hence 9 to 5, Monday to Friday job is what the majority fall into. They regret it during the weekends but then comes Monday...

Sirius Glass · Dec 2, 2012

Another reason film rules. I just shot and had developed C-41 film that expired in July 1994. I would like to see one use PC software from 1994 process digital images on today's computers! [Except possibly on a Mac, because we all know that Macs have been and will always be vastly superior to any stinkin' PC.]

Diapositivo · Dec 2, 2012

kevs said:
"The case may be that in the wedding photography sector the percentage of work produced in film is higher than in general photography."

hth,
kevs

Thanks. So percentually really does not exists. Re-reading my statement I see I had an easy substitute in "comparatively".

wogster · Dec 2, 2012

TooManyShots said:
No, this isn't about your ability. It is about the business of photography. Just because you are capable of shooting film, it does not mean you can make a successful business out of your photography. You must have a market for you works. And clients who are willing to pay for your services at your asking price. And whether or not you can fulfill your client's expectations with the necessary turn around time. I am pretty sure it is not a smart idea to promote yourself as a film wedding photographer in order to define your niche market and your style.... you have to ask yourself if the couples would care if the photos are shot with film or digital?? All they want is good quality photos. Not all couples are art majors. Not all couples know anything about photography.

There is an old saying, to the carpenter who has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I decided a few years ago that digital is like another film format, actually I consider the DSLR as one and the P&S digital as another. A good carpenter has more then one tool, heck a few carpenters I have met, have half a dozen different hammers A good photographer carries more then one camera, and for most there should be a film camera, maybe more then one, and in different formats, and a digital. The one time I shot a wedding, I had 2 cameras, one with B&W and the other with colour film. Now I would probably carry the digital as well. Some shots you want in B&W, some you want on colour film and some you will want digital. The key is to use the tool that gives you the result you, as a photographer want, with a minimum of fuss and time wasted.

Sirius Glass · Dec 2, 2012

wogster said:
The one time I shot a wedding, I had 2 cameras, one with B&W and the other with colour film.

With a Hasselblad or any MF camera with changeable backs, you only need one camera.

With a Pacemaker Speed or Crown Graphic, you only need one camera and sets of film holders with different films.

If you use digital you will miss the truly great shots because you will be too busy chimpin' to watch what is going on.

ME Super · Dec 2, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
Another reason film rules. I just shot and had developed C-41 film that expired in July 1994. I would like to see one use PC software from 1994 process digital images on today's computers! [Except possibly on a Mac, because we all know that Macs have been and will always be vastly superior to any stinkin' PC.]

Do this well with E-6 from 1994 you will not. Chance to fix aged dyes there is not with E-6.

kevs · Dec 3, 2012

Diapositivo said:
Thanks. So percentually really does not exists. Re-reading my statement I see I had an easy substitute in "comparatively".

It exists now, you've just invented it. :-D But I won't turn this thread into an English lesson; I make a poor teacher and we understand your meaning anyway. :-D

Cheers,
kevs

wogster · Dec 3, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
With a Hasselblad or any MF camera with changeable backs, you only need one camera.

With a Pacemaker Speed or Crown Graphic, you only need one camera and sets of film holders with different films.

If you use digital you will miss the truly great shots because you will be too busy chimpin' to watch what is going on.

That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.

wblynch · Dec 3, 2012

How many weddings are now shot on Phones?

I wish we had even Instamatic photos of our wedding, as we had no pictures taken at all.

The arguing continues but as long as there is film I will use it and enjoy it. And the naysayers can't stop me.

wogster · Dec 3, 2012

wblynch said:
How many weddings are now shot on Phones?

I wish we had even Instamatic photos of our wedding, as we had no pictures taken at all.

The arguing continues but as long as there is film I will use it and enjoy it. And the naysayers can't stop me.

Probably quite a few, not everyone can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars for photos that will sit in a drawer, to be hauled out only for special occasions. My own was shot mostly on the 35mm disposables we put out on tables.

wblynch · Dec 3, 2012

wogster said:
My own was shot mostly on the 35mm disposables we put out on tables.

No lie, the best pictures we got of both daughter's weddings were from the disposable film cameras. And all went onto CD's from the processor for digital distribution needs.

markbarendt · Dec 3, 2012

wogster said:
That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.

Truly don't need a zillion shots to do a good job. An educated buyer will understand that. Modern albums typically use 60-100 shots.

The last wedding I shot, was done on 9-rolls of 35mm. That was considerably more shots than really needed.

Probably would have had plenty with 9-10 rolls on my RB. I've got three backs which would have easily covered the rushes and weddings normally are hurry then wait affairs, there would be plenty of time to reload.

Of course I'd charge more than $500.

Pioneer · Dec 3, 2012

wblynch said:
No lie, the best pictures we got of both daughter's weddings were from the disposable film cameras. And all went onto CD's from the processor for digital distribution needs.

Same here. My daughter paid $5,000 for a professional wedding photographer. Mom and I handed out 50 Kodak disposable cameras that costs us a tad over $200 (cheapest investment of the entire wedding.) When everything was all said and done the shots from the Kodak cameras were the ones with the best results. The professional photographer obviously had a nice set of posed portraits the bride and groom, and of various members of the wedding party. But the candids were a bust. Those little disposables are great cameras. Can't find the Kodak ones anymore but I can still get the Fuji ones. Am going to hand out another batch for this upcoming Xmas.

Sirius Glass · Dec 3, 2012

wogster said:
That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.

I do not need to take thousands of photographs to capture a wedding. I make each photograph count. Hasselblad back are much cheaper now, I generally pay about $100US per back, and I discovered that they are even reusable!

wogster · Dec 3, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
I do not need to take thousands of photographs to capture a wedding. I make each photograph count. Hasselblad back are much cheaper now, I generally pay about $100US per back, and I discovered that they are even reusable!

My main point is though, that of photographer time. You take the images, drop it at the lab, and let the lab do the processing and proof prints. Then pick them up on the way to visit the family, with paper prints to go through, they pick the ones they like, and you drop the order back at the lab. Your time investment is minimal, the time you spent at the shoot and going to the lab. I guess, if your old school and use your digital the way a film guy uses film, you could do similar, drop the card at the lab for printing, and then pick up prints for the meeting. A lot of digital guys, who didn't come from a film background, end up shooting 2,000 frames, and if you give the family that kind of choice, it will take weeks to decide on the 60 for the package. That means the photographer has to cut it from 2,000 to 120 or so, and that's going to take hours. Hours they could spend on getting more gigs.

One Reason Why Film Rules

markbarendt

TooManyShots

PKM-25

markbarendt

kevs

JBrunner

Moderator

TooManyShots

markbarendt

markbarendt

lxdude

georg16nik

Sirius Glass

Attachments

Diapositivo

wogster

Sirius Glass

ME Super

kevs

wogster

wblynch

wogster

wblynch

markbarendt

Pioneer

Sirius Glass

wogster

One Reason Why Film Rules

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency