Why Film Makes Business Sense

DMW I doubt that there's any general answer to these questions. Profit margin depends so much on efficiency (shooting and in the darkroom). And it depends on experience, turnaround time, customer's needs, marketing... Someone with a high hit rate and a lot of darkroom experience and successful analogue schtick can certainly turn a profit on film.

If you shoot a lot of volume and extract a few shots from that, then digital will inevitably make more business sense. This is typical now for many sports and wildlife shooters. At the other extreme, if you are efficient, shoot a small volume and do that very well, and if you are good at marketing the special qualities of the analogue product, well then you could probably turn a profit even with ULF!!

If it were me shooting that (very interesting) documentary project you mention, I would probably go all-film, probably with a crown graphic or similar and just do intimate 4x5 contacts. I'd be tempted to thematically connect the qualities of an historical camera with the historical aspects of the subject. That's what I mean by "schtick", let's be honest. Besides that, I'd hate to think about taking my D700 out in a saltwater environment

Thanks Keith-
crown graphic - interesting idea...
I have to ponder that one awhile - it never occured to me !

I was thinking of 6x7 and 35 mm...

I have researched pricing models until it became mind boggleing....
so I am going to step back and just focus on the projects - the business end of it will become apparent as I start working on a few of the shorter term ideas.

These will be 100 % film based, b&w silver gel prints.

I have about 6 weeks before I begin, if anyone has any ideas to contribute I would love to hear them! Thanks DJ

DJ

'Tis easy to take a picture.

'Tis real work being in the photo business.

'Tis real work making a business plan.

'Tis real work finding clients (marketing) and then selling your work.

'Tis real work doing all the production.

If you serious about making a profit you gotta do a plan so you know how to make money and where all your costs are and how to price stuff and how everything else is going to get done.

The COGS model is for an average portrait/wedding studio, not necessarily journalism or personal art.

COGS is applicable but you need to understand that it is not just the print cost that counts, COGS needs to include all the work and materials that are needed.

For example, a simple no travel 1/2 hour portrait sitting with proofs I might buy 1 roll of film, the mailing out to the lab, the processing, the scanning, the proofs, the mailing back to me. This costs me about $35 out of pocket so I charge $100.

Time is a finite resource and $35 is cheap when I figure in what my time is worth doing other things, like my day job or spending that time selling more work or sleeping.

If there's travel maybe add $2 a mile and an hourly rate that makes sense, like $35-$50/hour as an add on.

From there once a client picks a photo to print the COGS cycle starts again. All the production costs, mailing costs, hiring out the retouching (even if that is hired out to yourself) and the actual $1 for the print count in COGS.

Hiring a lab for a 1/2 hour of work at say $72/hour to get a "final" 8x10 plus shipping and the print may mean a COGS of $40-$50, so the retail price based on COGS might be in the $125-$150 range for the first print. A 16x20 may take a lot longer to prep and may be easily worth double or triple that.

wow thanks - that is great advice-
it never occured to me that : "COGS cycle starts again" in regards to the print. I had been trying to combine all factors into one.

If you sell it as a package you can pack it all together.

I'd rather break it up.

Each "product" you sell can be priced separately using different models.

The sitting.

The travel.

The prints.

The frames.

The magic of using the COGS model is the simplicity, if you get all the production costs in, it will create enough revenue to; pay you a wage, pay your insurance, set some aside for new camera gear, cover your overhead, ....

"Why Film Makes Business Sense"

Does it?

For my business, I'm 100% digital. Couldn't make near the profit I do with film. Requires a long explanation that I won't do here. Could go on about why digital is better for me but I don't want to upset the apple cart here.

Just a couple of examples, when I was film capture only, the films costs, developing, getting "proofs" and/or scanning were around $250.00 per gig.

Not included in this amount was the time I had to spend or hire out to get film picked up at my studio, taken to a lab, deliver the proofs & negs back to me & get them to my clients for review and orders. I was too busy to run around to have this done so how much do you think it cost me?

Today, I can transmit an order to my lab right from here at my desk with my little MacBook and if I have the order in by 11 AM it's at my door the next day.

I can go on and on but all I would do is P.O. some of you. I shall quit.

wclark5179 said:

Does it?

Click to expand...

Part of the OP's prefered output is a Silver Gelatin print.

So yes.

wclark5179 said:

"Why Film Makes Business Sense"

Does it?

For my business, I'm 100% digital. Couldn't make near the profit I do with film. Requires a long explanation that I won't do here. Could go on about why digital is better for me but I don't want to upset the apple cart here.

Just a couple of examples, when I was film capture only, the films costs, developing, getting "proofs" and/or scanning were around $250.00 per gig.

Not included in this amount was the time I had to spend or hire out to get film picked up at my studio, taken to a lab, deliver the proofs & negs back to me & get them to my clients for review and orders. I was too busy to run around to have this done so how much do you think it cost me?

Today, I can transmit an order to my lab right from here at my desk with my little MacBook and if I have the order in by 11 AM it's at my door the next day.

I can go on and on but all I would do is P.O. some of you. I shall quit.

Click to expand...

Most of us are well aware of the digital workflow. Please do not belabor it anymore on APUG.

wclark5179 said:

"Why Film Makes Business Sense"

Does it?

For my business, I'm 100% digital. Couldn't make near the profit I do with film. Requires a long explanation that I won't do here. Could go on about why digital is better for me but I don't want to upset the apple cart here.

Just a couple of examples, when I was film capture only, the films costs, developing, getting "proofs" and/or scanning were around $250.00 per gig.

Not included in this amount was the time I had to spend or hire out to get film picked up at my studio, taken to a lab, deliver the proofs & negs back to me & get them to my clients for review and orders. I was too busy to run around to have this done so how much do you think it cost me?

Today, I can transmit an order to my lab right from here at my desk with my little MacBook and if I have the order in by 11 AM it's at my door the next day.

I can go on and on but all I would do is P.O. some of you. I shall quit.

Click to expand...

Thanks. You're making an opportunity cost argument here. Funny but many working pros I know--especially with your type of business where margins and competition are tight--regret the sheer amount of time they spend in post-production relative to their days with an all-film workflow--only a few can afford a dedicated technician they trust with their PS work.

CGW said:

Thanks. You're making an opportunity cost argument here. Funny but many working pros I know--especially with your type of business where margins and competition are tight--regret the sheer amount of time they spend in post-production relative to their days with an all-film workflow--only a few can afford a dedicated technician they trust with their PS work.

Click to expand...

Lots of contrived arguments, falsehoods, and plain wrong ideas tailored to fit the premise "Film Makes Business Sense". Lots of bluster, religion, and manipulative comments.

Generally, and for most photographic applications, one will make a heck of a lot more profit margin shooting digital over film. And more then often with high quality too. Often artists shoot digital and print on silver halide paper and the results are immaculate.

I shoot film 99% of the time, and prefer film, but I'm not going to join other enthusiasts in jabbing the other media just to somehow bolster my love for film. People that do that are showing their insecurity, subjectivity, and are putting the primary directive: THE PICTURE secondary over the medium, and that is truly sad.

The first casualty of war (F vs D) is truth, and that goes for both types of fanatics.

Long live Film! More importantly, Long Live Pictures!!

Fuji 100 ISO B&W Film, 35mm, Canon EOS 1v SLR, Canon 35mm F1.4 prime.

Since some persons are wretchedly bent on making this a D vs F despite a completely different intention by the OP, and a clear warning, well, here you go, thread closed. If you aren't clear on the APUG charter, please read it. We discuss analog here. Not analog vs digital, or the differences, or the advantages of one over the other. Analog. Period. If you can't figure that out please find another forum.