The same is happening to the digital camera as the thing that happened on the mobile phones, once the market is saturated the sales will drop tremendous. Consumerism on it's best.
Why Film Makes Business Sense
-
- Thread starter Shangheye
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad Zeiss FE 50mm f/2.8 Distagon Blue Line Series Lens
- Started by tpstearns
-
For Sale FS: B&J Press 4x5 Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Nikon 4X Pro Loupe
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Rodenstock Grandagon 58mm f/5.6 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 27
- Format
- Multi Format
I know that im new and the same stuff has been repeated hundreds of times...
But, who shooting digital wants to run free apps???
and who running digital can run any old computer?
In the real world you have to upgrade and keep up. My friend has a pentium two 350 running windows 98, which he uses to send email and word process very well... will he enjoy the digital experience? I think not.
Plus, digital and Photoshop go hand in hand which is why all camera clubs the length and breadth of the UK spend hours and hours pontificating about RAW this and RAW that. They spend so much time discussing photoshop that Im now no longer a member of any club.
So take your £1200 DSLR + £1000 computer + £800 Photoshop CS34 and add to that the need to print/proof digital at home and how much is spent on monitor £200, printer £200 to £400, calibration tools and software(skys the limit), not to mention ink £30 a pack (for cheap clones) and paper £10 or 10 sheets of anything decent - before you realise that its crap it doesnt archive well and have to get a pro lab to make trannies or prints, because you didnt have a darkroom cause you put all your faith in the RAW file! and that is a cheap set up!
SLR £30 roll of film £3 chemicals £30 darkroom equipment (enlarger, tanks, trays etc) £200
simple maths to take and print your first DSLR image at home = £3000+
To take and print your first film SLR image at home = £300
ouch!
P.S. It comes down to this for me!
Noise is an error of the sensor and CCD, a problem which must be overcome that jolts the viewer out of the image.
Grain is different, subtle and sometimes welcome and saught after. Not the same thing at all!
Last edited by a moderator:
My entire software stack from operating system to image sorting to post processing is all done with Free Software.
The only place that I don't use Free Software is when I have to run over to the Mac to scan my negatives, because there is no Free Software that works with my combination of scanner and computer.
Me.
No, but an old Pentium 4 that you can get for $50 will do the job nicely.
Now with all that said, the digital guy is going to be upgrading all of his hardware every 3 to 5 years, and spend additional money on making backups. The guy who is doing backups to optical disk is in for a real wakeup call when he goes to restore from a 5 year old DVD and finds that it has delaminated or is in some other way unreadable.
How many digital shooters are still using the same camera body they used 5 years ago? There are some, but they are few in number.
Now how many film shooters are using a 20+ year old camera? My primary film camera is probably pushing 40 years, and it is a youngster of a camera in this community. I figure with good fine grain film and drum scanning, I'm good for close to 50MP and the images already come out square so I don't need to crop them to make them look right.
With digital, most of your costs are up front, such that the more you shoot, the smaller the incremental cost per image. If you're a prolific professional or perhaps a retiree that can spend almost every day shooting, digital can begin to make financial sense.
With film, you can get into it for a few hundred bucks up front, with most of that cost going into film processing chemicals and related dry goods. Your initial investment becomes negligible pretty quickly, but there is still a hard floor on the cost per image set by the cost of the film itself, plus the processing. There are ways to economize this, but there will always be a significant cost here.
The prolific film shooter will in time rack up film costs that can make digital look like a more economical alternative.
But wait!
Five years are up. The likelihood of Mr. Digital's RAID array crashing is becoming very high. It's time to buy a new RAID array and move all the old backups over to the new array. Disk costs are cheap, but these days 15MP cameras are becoming common, and photographers are increasingly starting to back up three or four copies of the same image (RAW file from camera, post processed TIFF or PSD, JPG sized for printing, JPG sized for web).
The longer a prolific photographer's career last, the more and more they are going to need their own IT department if they are working in digital just to keep up with the archival requirements! It's not so bad now, but just wait. 30 years from now it should be really interesting to hear how digital photographers are staying on top of their archives.
The point is, regardless of how you structure, film can and does make business sense, not as in the original OP, or from a pure cost perspective, but in spite of economic considerations if correctly marketed. Businesses that trade and operate on price alone almost always fail, because margins are too slim and competition is too keen among the bottom feeders. I watch the prosumer digi wannabe GWC's in my market wreak havoc as they come and go on a near weekly basis. The killer for many persons starting photography businesses is that they believe that the low end is where to begin building their business. The trouble is they are building on shaky ground, as the GWC's harpoon each other with abandon, and those that operate as such fully deserve the clients they get. I started shunning that market long ago. Could the D part of my business operate as Silverglow suggests? Yes, but not for long, nor would I want to be involved with it. Can I really operate the film side with a $35 dollar camera with a 50mm? Yes, but I would run into the same problems.
In the real world of photographing for a living, which I do, my books indicate that I run a higher profit margin and command higher prices on the film side, with less investment and near even operating costs. That isn't wishful thinking or blind belief in a dogma, rather the cold hard facts of twenty years of book keeping.
The real point is that business wise you have to choose what you are going to be, how you are going to become that, and if the profit margin can support it. Right now offering both services seems to make the most sense, but the D side is more of a service for service sake, not the flagship. The D side is always ripe with cost cutters even on the high end, and dealing with that takes time and energy, and that is worth money, part of the hidden expense. I have no such issues on the film side. The jobs seem to sell themselves, and I am getting more and more bluebirds from simple word of mouth. I have such a job this weekend!
So to the OP, yes film can make as much sense as anything, if you target your market correctly. No camera or media makes a successful photographer.
In the real world of photographing for a living, which I do, my books indicate that I run a higher profit margin and command higher prices on the film side, with less investment and near even operating costs. That isn't wishful thinking or blind belief in a dogma, rather the cold hard facts of twenty years of book keeping.
The real point is that business wise you have to choose what you are going to be, how you are going to become that, and if the profit margin can support it. Right now offering both services seems to make the most sense, but the D side is more of a service for service sake, not the flagship. The D side is always ripe with cost cutters even on the high end, and dealing with that takes time and energy, and that is worth money, part of the hidden expense. I have no such issues on the film side. The jobs seem to sell themselves, and I am getting more and more bluebirds from simple word of mouth. I have such a job this weekend!
So to the OP, yes film can make as much sense as anything, if you target your market correctly. No camera or media makes a successful photographer.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 27
- Format
- Multi Format
Agreed, its not impossible
but 99.9 percent of users want industry standard so they can follow tips and tutorials in magazines, use thier newly found noise illiminating plug in, get tech support, calibrate thier colourspace, and importantly, maintain the dream of one day being a professional. If we just lookat this commercially - do you think the customer expects photoshop and the latest greatest hardwear - or free software running on an old $50 pentium 4? Which service would your $$ buy?
Dont get me wrong, I love open source, its the model that works best for todays internet age (otherwise folks just steal it in a torrent) but a lot of money is spent making sure that the apples and adobe's of this world maintain status... and 99.9 percent of the time it works! and keeping up with this system costs users 1000's of dollars...
You are the 0.1 percent who has the inteligence to seek other alternatives, someone who I can relate to
J
I believe Jason is quite correct. By being EXTREMELY frugal I've managed to make digital work for me financially, however, it has taken a cast iron stomach to be able to withstand the temptations of "The New Shiny". I bought my mainline digital workhorse as a refurb which saved me almost half of the standard retail price. And that was four years ago. I bought ONE lens with it and manage to use all my legacy lenses for my film gear. The year before, I had purchased a digital "bridge camera" which functions as my digital backup--which I've never had to use as a backup.
As a professional photographer (as in, I actually make money with my photography), I've been riding the wave of the good economy by being right in the middle of where everybody else is at. When wedding photography is "in", I shoot weddings. When stock photography is profitable, I shoot stock. (note: Stock ain't profitable anymore). When art photography is "in", I shoot art. etc. But this is exactly what all my competition is doing too. When the marketplace is good, everybody makes money. When the marketplace dries up, there are too many of us to make enough money to survive.
So, the trick is, for me, is to adapt and go to the "fringes" of the marketplace bell-curve. These are the specialty areas which during good times are steady, but lackluster performers, but during bad times, are still there. A friend of mine is a freelance forensic photographer, for example. The beauty of shooting film is that I'm able to work a specialty niche' market that the vast majority of digital-only photographers cannot. It may not be fat money, but it may be enough to keep my business afloat through the tough times.
The last digital camera I bought was four years ago and is woefully out of date and barely competitive in the extreme high-end quality work. By shooting film, I've been able to use film as an alternative technology when maximum print quality is required. This has saved me from at least three camera upgrades so far! In my experience, the percentage of work actually needing the additional quality is less than 5%. Chasing that last 5% for the digital-only shooter is extremely expensive. As I can pass the film costs (with profit markup) to the client my attaining that last 5% with film is actually a profit-center for me, not an expense.
I guess I learned a lesson. In digital, if you want to always stay "current", don't buy professional-grade cameras. They last too long. Save your money and get the cheapest DSLR you can find and throw them away the moment a new model comes out.
As a professional photographer (as in, I actually make money with my photography), I've been riding the wave of the good economy by being right in the middle of where everybody else is at. When wedding photography is "in", I shoot weddings. When stock photography is profitable, I shoot stock. (note: Stock ain't profitable anymore). When art photography is "in", I shoot art. etc. But this is exactly what all my competition is doing too. When the marketplace is good, everybody makes money. When the marketplace dries up, there are too many of us to make enough money to survive.
So, the trick is, for me, is to adapt and go to the "fringes" of the marketplace bell-curve. These are the specialty areas which during good times are steady, but lackluster performers, but during bad times, are still there. A friend of mine is a freelance forensic photographer, for example. The beauty of shooting film is that I'm able to work a specialty niche' market that the vast majority of digital-only photographers cannot. It may not be fat money, but it may be enough to keep my business afloat through the tough times.
The last digital camera I bought was four years ago and is woefully out of date and barely competitive in the extreme high-end quality work. By shooting film, I've been able to use film as an alternative technology when maximum print quality is required. This has saved me from at least three camera upgrades so far! In my experience, the percentage of work actually needing the additional quality is less than 5%. Chasing that last 5% for the digital-only shooter is extremely expensive. As I can pass the film costs (with profit markup) to the client my attaining that last 5% with film is actually a profit-center for me, not an expense.
I guess I learned a lesson. In digital, if you want to always stay "current", don't buy professional-grade cameras. They last too long. Save your money and get the cheapest DSLR you can find and throw them away the moment a new model comes out.
Nearly every single one of your arguments are plain wrong, sorry.
The free Canon raw processor that comes with each of their cameras is free, and although a bit ackward, it still does a great job of master images. No, you are wrong, one does not have to have PhotoShop to get great benefit in digital.
If you think one has to keep up with digital, then you are one of the millions that has bought into the lies of marketing departments. You can easily shoot digital and process on a 5-7 year old PC, using 5-7 year old software, and get great benefits. It is a fallacy to think one has to "keep up". I personally know many people that have such antiquated setups that do just fine. One need only spend about $150-$300 on a used late model DSLR, and use the free software, and $50 printer and one can create great art on peanuts. And if one averages 10 "rolls" a week, one readly sees that to do this with film would cost a heck of a lot more. Do you really believe you need to spend $1,200 on a DSLR?!?
Sorry but it seems you're opinions are based on profound ignorance of computers, imaginging sofware, and technology in general. No offense intended, so please don't take it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason, perhaps in your situation, using film is better, both for artistic and financial reasons, but your situation is not typical to most shooters out there.
Apples and Oranges, Jason.
If you're going to use the $35 Pentax scenario, without wet darkroom, then I would introduce the jpg-only DSLR shooter that pays $150 for a used DSLR, with no PC. If both shoot 10 "rolls" per week, the film shooter is going to pay exceedingly more per year.
Lets do Apples and Apples:
$35 SLR + wet darkrroom + 10 rolls/week @ $2.50/roll. = $1,335 first year, not to mention the cost of chemicals, and equipment (enlarger).
vs.
$150 DSLR + dry darkroom + 360 exposures/week. = $150.00 first year not to mention PC, and software.
$1,335 vs. $150
Now this is not to say one should then shoot digital, no way. I like all of you prefer film, however I think what this does prove is that one cannot use cost savings as a reason to shoot film. There are other more realistic and objective reasons to shoot film, and cost savings is never one of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
With digital you have to "keep it all or lose it all"? You are kidding right? ;-)
It does not work this way in digital...you press the delete button on the camera if you don't like the shot. With film you are forced to process the entire roll, the keepers and the bloopers together.
As to what is good for business? I think film is good for business if it provides the best quality for a given application. And often, the more costly solution is often the most profitable. For example, to use film means higher cost, but more sales, because of the higher quality, etc, and for a give application.
I never said film can't be good for business. If one wants to use film in their business, then do it for quality reasons, and not cost saving reasons. I think most customers will pay more if the quality is there.
You illustrate my point entirely, as neither can one use cost savings as a reason to shoot D. There are too many variables. That said, this thread is about film shooting as business.
A jpeg only shooter with a $150 DSLR isn't a credible business, nor a credible threat to a decent account. If you are serious about a photography business that offers D service, you will have a substantial investment and ongoing cost if you want to be credible, compatible, competitive and efficient. Of course you will also gain the depreciation and deductions, but those don't make profit, but merely soften the blows, as you must spend the money to get it back, and once you are on that wagon the turnaround is frequent by the nature of the business cycle. OTO if you want to screw around with a POS camera and pretend you are in business, I and the others can safely ignore it, because the only person being fooled is the guy with the $150 camera. OTO last year I shot an Ad Federation job with a Holga. It paid well.
Quality arguments are hilarious from either side, the bastion of the novice, because at a professional level, quality is a given. Aesthetic is what rules, and I don't have to fold spindle and mutilate anything to get it with film.
Where the rubber meets the road, in business, there are many variables as well. Structuring a business around the strengths of film is a completely viable option, but it requires thought, marketing, foresight and imagination.
Last edited by a moderator:
Once, in a previous life when I had more money, I was at a small "classic car" dealer in Florida who was trying to sell me a nice but very old Ferrari. His argument was pretty compelling. Basically, every penny of depreciation was gone from the car, and as long as I didn't abuse it, then it would only increase in value, albeit slowly, over the years. Basically I could buy it for $8K, drive it (sanely) for two years, and then sell it for $8.5K. He was probably right, but not being much of a car kind of guy, I didn't go for it.
Thanks J. My OP was an arguement why it makes business sense long term for manufacturers of film, but the fact that it makes sense for users as well is just icing on the cake
. K
Over here quality is the least important in the photographic business.
Customers don't know it, can't appreciate it and don't really want it.
Professionals only care about delivering what's "good enough" which is usually pretty low.
So, film, does not make business sense and I am really having a hard time finding work. I haven't had a project in months...
Customers don't know it, can't appreciate it and don't really want it.
Professionals only care about delivering what's "good enough" which is usually pretty low.
So, film, does not make business sense and I am really having a hard time finding work. I haven't had a project in months...
You will do better marketing the aesthetic I would bet. You can't compete with good enough, because someone will always be cheaper.
Anything that a photographer can use to make money makes business sense. If you can't to that with either film or digital, then you probably just can't do it! No need to argue the minutiae. Just go do it.
RA4 11x14 is cheaper than ink jet luster paper of the same size. I could process with no waste. It's not hard. Plus I've never lost a roll of film I shot ever. Meanwhile other people have lost entire cards of digital files. It's not worth the risk to me. Here are my advantages to film:
1. Lenses are cross compatible and film cameras are so cheap. If I ever do go digital my expense will be limited.
2. I have no computer errors with my enlarger. It doesn't need upgrades, virus protection, or crash for reasons unknown. Chemistry is cheap, much less than ink. Paper is cheap too.
3. Film looks cool. I don't care what you say. It does. Chromes on the light table cannot be replicated any other way.
To my knowledge I don't have cancer yet. However, my latest epiphany was to realize that to completely ignore digital is just stupid. I can make great pictures with either.
1. Lenses are cross compatible and film cameras are so cheap. If I ever do go digital my expense will be limited.
2. I have no computer errors with my enlarger. It doesn't need upgrades, virus protection, or crash for reasons unknown. Chemistry is cheap, much less than ink. Paper is cheap too.
3. Film looks cool. I don't care what you say. It does. Chromes on the light table cannot be replicated any other way.
To my knowledge I don't have cancer yet. However, my latest epiphany was to realize that to completely ignore digital is just stupid. I can make great pictures with either.
I think we agree more much more then disagree.
As to "credible equipment" there are many pros make awesome artful wedding pictures with DSLR's that are years old, and they do it with jpg's. Now I don't think a pro should shoot a wedding with jpg's nor with a camera that provides so little resolution.
However, one can't argue with the awesome compositions some of these pros make with such old cameras, so-so lenses, and very poor post processing skills.
In other countries, where people subsist, money is super tight, opportunities are infrequent, many such pros often make outstanding comps. I was in Bulgaria a few years ago, in the capitol city of Sofia and we happened on someone's photography studio near the American embassy, and the work this man did was to die for. His compositions were amazing, and he made these comps with at that time was a 6+ year old DSLR, providing just 3.2 megapixels, and his lenses were all old Sigma or Tamron bottom of the barrel faire. Yet he made pictures that would be the envy of most American shooters who use 10s of thousands of $$ in the latest film or digital equipment.
This is not to suggest that using expensive film or digital equipment is foolish, but rather to suggest that it is more about the skills and imagination of the photographer then the equipment or medium.
I think that this issue is personal to each photographer. You know yourself, and if you know film will meet your vision, your expectations for whatever art you make, for your expectations of quality, then regardless of the cost, you should...no...you must use film. Because if you don't then you might not be able to fulfill the high quality requirements that you set for yourself.
Now depending upon the person, his genre, his art, the medium of choice could be film or digital, and if one picks one over the other, cost must never be part of that equation, even if one makes art for business reasons.
For the sake of argument, if using film meant that your production costs were double or triple what it might cost to use digital, it would be a valid business reason to choose film, even if your accountant thinks that you are crazy.
I think in the fine art arena, quality sells. And that quality must be provided at whatever cost is required to be sellable. You mentioned that you did a very well paying job with a Holga. Last spring I shoot a wedding with film and digital SLR's, and I pulled out my Holga and made about 6 comps, and the bride got worried, that I would shoot a wedding with a $25 toy camera. She got VERY concerned, eventhough she knew I shot 99% of her wedding with pro grade film & digital bodies, and top of the line lenses. Two of the Holga made pictures were outstanding, but she told me they were "very unprofessional". I was not upset. She is the client and she chose not to buy this "junk". Now I did sell her a 16" x 20" enlargement of a dreamy wonderful port of her and the groom, and I used a $100 Lensbaby "toy" lens on my 35mm film body to make this picture. I never told her about the LensBaby but if she only knew...
You list no compelling reasons to shoot film, with the exception of #3.
Denegrading digital is not a reason to shoot film.
Now if your reason for shooting film is because you love the look/effect of film, the qualities of film, using film meets helps you express your art better, then those reasons alone are good enough reasons to shoot film.
I think it sad when a digital user bashes film by listing all the "reasons" why shooting film "sucks". Same for film shooters.
Like F2/F2 has stated more then once, and to paraphrase: it is the outcome, the print that matters so much more then the means, the medium used to capture the comp.
In 2009, there is plenty of objective reasons to shoot film and digital, and I for one don't perceive digital as replacing film, but rather just an additional method to reach one's ends. I wish more people thought as I, because if they did, film would not be dying, or fading away, but rather it would be thriving and film sales would be sky high like the old days.
I think that too often film-only and digital-only shooters see this issue as one or the other but not both. People are polarized on the subject. Lots of idealization, romantization going on both sides. Too much emotion about the tools and not the compositions, the prints.
It is funny, but I have been accused of "going backwards" by several of my digital-only associates of late. For my personal work I've been shooting film 95% of the time in the last 4-5 months, and well, they roll their eyes. I don't get offended but I do feel sad for them. Saturday I was at a bar with 4 other pros and one of them walked out in disgust because I would "admit" digital was better for weddings then film. Religion, to be sure. lol
I never said digital sucks. But with film you have none of the problems which are unique to digital. Losing a card of images, especially for a client, can be disheartening. That does not apply to film.
What are you talking about? I gave reasons. Printing film is cheaper than printing on an inkjet. The paper is cheaper and the chemistry is cheaper than the ink. That's business sense. I paid $50 for a year of RA4 chemistry while my school keeps $300 of spare inkjet cartridges on hand for replacement.
I also feel no guilt in building my film gear up because bodies are cheap to the point of disposability and when I'm done the lenses all work fine for digital. That's more of a reason why I don't feel pressured to shoot digital.
Amen. The cost of ink is no joke, and is truly the hidden cost of doing business by printing via inkjets. It's why I'm in the process of setting up a traditional wet darkroom to process larger B&W prints.
Obviously the economics of film vs. digital depends very much on the type of shooting. If I were sitting on a huge portrait/fashion business, then even a $30k digiback could make sense. Photoshop geeks are a dime a dozen.
Well put Jason.
I tried the fancy ink jet route when I was fully digital, wanted to do everything myself. I figured out real quick that I could have a pro-lab print it for less, mount it for less, and provide nearly perfect reliability.
Come now, lets be fair and objective. For every "problem" with digital you list, you can come up with a "problem" with film. It seems your list is one sided. And to print on inkjet paper, and I mean the good paper, it does not have to cost more then wet printing, and often we're talking about pennies per 4" x 6".
I'll start: with digital, no chemicals to mix, get corrupted, etc....
In other words, I still find your reasons highly subjective, but that's cool ;-)
In other words, all mediums have their pluses and minuses, yea? Can you admit that? ;-)
Yea, sure, printing with an inkjet with the best inks and best paper is going to cost you pennies per 4" x 6"...lots and lots of money.
Right.
Another false economy, to be sure. ;-)
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |