Just a niggle - I feel like an adulterer when shooting digital for economic reasons

[TED_SMITH]

For just over a year, I've been working 'properly' with film (i.e. buying pro films and using certain films for certain effects, developing myself, and elarning printing) but I also went digital in 2006.

For personal work, I almost always use film with my Nikon F5 camera. But for any client based work that I do (which isn't much) I find myself torn between the qualities of film vs the economy of digital.

I've written a few threads at APUG and one here about working with the two and how best to make a profit when working with film in the digital age, and although many answers sound sensible, in practice I just find that commercially I get along better with digital, but I'm often disapointed with the final prints and feel like I;m cheating on my passion, which is shooting film. And while I'm taking the photo I always keep thinking "If I shot this with Velvia it would like ...." or "If I shot her face with Kodak Portra 160 it would look like....". But I also know that with digital I can 'develop' the raw image, create a proof and even a print in no time at all and for pence rather pounds. Do you know what I mean? It's this niggle that bothers me. Nothing I can do about it. I'm just ranting.

[jd callow]

Remember why you shoot. Sometimes you shoot for money and therefore you should use the best tool for the job and sometimes you shoot for <fill in the blank> and for that you should act in kind.

[pellicle]

JD, I agree but I'd qualify this one small amount

Remember why you shoot. Sometimes you shoot for money and therefore you should use the best tool for the job

Sometimes you shoot for money and therefore you should use the most economic tool for the job (or your not maximizing your time, ergo profits). My experience (and that of my other friends in various service oriented businesses) is: "Give the client exactly what they want". Giving them a higher quality than they desire (or can appreciate) will simply cut into your bottom line.

So, in business, don't feel like bad about being a prostitute only feel bad if you're not making ends meet every year ;-)

[Joe Lipka]

Sometimes I feel bad because I don't use a really old sand wedge I got when I was a teenager. Sometimes I use that nice old club and feel bad that I don't hit that new golf club in my bag.

A camera is a tool. Use whatever tool is appropriate to the task. Don't feel bad about which one you use.

[jd callow]

JD, I agree but I'd qualify this one small amount



Sometimes you shoot for money and therefore you should use the most economic tool for the job (or your not maximizing your time, ergo profits). My experience (and that of my other friends in various service oriented businesses) is: "Give the client exactly what they want". Giving them a higher quality than they desire (or can appreciate) will simply cut into your bottom line.

So, in business, don't feel like bad about being a prostitute only feel bad if you're not making ends meet every year ;-)

Yes, but the goals of a shoot may be: speed, quantity, suitable for a 4x5 or 8x10 advert (or display on screen). These are things best suited for a specific tool. Many years ago I did a newsletter for a Hospital. The print quality was low, the budget was lower and the turnaround was short. I shot everything on polaroid.

[JBrunner]

It really boils down to using the right tool for the job. I make the same margin with film or digital. The industry standard model is to pass through expenses regardless of the medium used. Shooting digital generally doesn't amount to much cost savings on most of my commercial jobs, save extended shoots where a great many images are generated, but those jobs are not my normal work.

[Erik Ehrling]

And while I'm taking the photo I always keep thinking "If I shot this with Velvia it would like ...." or "If I shot her face with Kodak Portra 160 it would look like...."

If you think you could produce better end results with film you should make this very clear to your clients. If it's not within their budgets, there's not much you can do about it (and you should not feel guilty about shooting digital in that case either).

But - is it really true that digital is cheaper than film? It would be interesting to hear your motivation for saying that.

BR,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

[TED_SMITH]

But - is it really true that digital is cheaper than film? It would be interesting to hear your motivation for saying that.

- lets not go down that route...it's beyond the scope of this thread and uit's been discussed a lot at APUG. Very briefly, my motivation is based on my experience - while I appreciate you have to buy a computer, software, storage etc initially, once you have it, the running costs are not that high and it's just a case of copying from card to PC, uploading best shots to a pro lab and having prints run off (though I appreciate you shoot less with film generally). With the film option, every role has to be developed (say £5), every role has to have a set of prints done (say another £5) or a basic scan to CD, and then you have to order your individual best shots (maybe £2 each). So a 36 roll of film with 6x4 proofs and 2 or 3 best shots might cost £30 (if you include the cost of the film itself). Digital files - £4 or £6 for the two or three best shots you have printed. You see my point? But as I say, lets not start a 'costs of digital vs film' thread here - that's a new thread entirely.

[Erik Ehrling]

You're right, the interesting part of this discussion is not at all in the "film vs digital" domain, but rather how you value the costs of not completing your artistic vision: If your vision says A and you're consistently doing B what are the costs for lower satisfaction from your work?

Will that lowered satisfaction in the end affect your self-confidence and eventually what you charge for your work? How large is that difference compared to the costs of materials for method A vs B? If it is smaller, forget about A altogether and concentrate on B, if it is greater, seriously consider doing A more than today...

BR,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

[Ray Heath]

You're right, the interesting part of this discussion is not at all in the "film vs digital" domain, but rather how you value the costs of not completing your artistic vision: If your vision says A and you're consistently doing B what are the costs for lower satisfaction from your work?

Will that lowered satisfaction in the end affect your self-confidence and eventually what you charge for your work? How large is that difference compared to the costs of materials for method A vs B? If it is smaller, forget about A altogether and concentrate on B, if it is greater, seriously consider doing A more than today...

BR,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

g'day all

or, you could loosen up a little and admit that both A and B have strengths and weaknesses and learn how to use the method that best suits the given situation

or, you could just ignore what others might think and please yourself