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.

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.

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 ;-)

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, 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.

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.

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)

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.

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)

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

If £30 is making or breaking your shoot, you're not charging enough to be taken seriously, no matter what the format.

JBrunner

You're right, it's just that a lot of my stuff is charity fund raising stuff at the moment, so it's a case of trying to maximise profit for the charities concerned. It's just that while shooting I often end up thinking that the shot would look better shot on X Y or Z. But as you said earlier, it's a case of applying the medium for the situation, and in 99% of cases, a digital photo for 'Joe Average' will be more than good enough.

Ah... for pro bono work I'd just do what works. I wouldn't do more unless there were something in it for the portfolio, then it becomes an investment in yourself. Cease niggling.:)

Ted Smith, like you, most of my work is personal indulgence and mostly film. I certainly shoot digital when commissioned to do a shoot. Mainly because I know I've got the results (esp with group shots etc.). My camera has redundant architecture inside it, my Mac is backed up to two different locations and generally I'm very very cautious about customer satisfaction. I need to know everything is ok, I'm paranoid. It's also incredibly fast (for instance getting the right exposure under difficult lighting one can chimp it for the setup then fire away). Because I can work assured I've got the money shots, I can also have a much simpler workflow with film (balancing a tungsten film for outdoors, needing bodies, one for B&W, colour, indoors, outdoors, etc.). My lenses are interchangable between my 35mm camera and my DSLR so I have the best of both worlds, the gorgeousness of film and guarantees of digital! I can also take more creative departures once I know I've bagged the important shots. I find it more liberating to have both, especially when outside of my comfort zone. I find having both that I use the benefits of digital as a tool and don't get so wrapped up in the drawbacks of digital.

"The customer is always right". Wrong. Nevertheless, he/she is paying for the work and is entitled to what he/she wants.

Our choice as photographers is only whether to take the gig or not. If we can afford to hold out for the type of work we want to do, we are extremely fortunate. Most of us have to do what's required to keep a roof over our heads and food in our family's bellies.

That sounds a bit melodramatic, I know, but it's why I didn't take up weddings full-time in the 80's when I already had a full-time job in insurance. (God, I know how to live the high life, eh?) Anyway, I love photography and believed if I did weddings as a main income, it would screw up my enjoyment altogether. So I kept it as a hobby. Wise move - at least from where I'm sitting.

Had I been able to earn more than my job paid in those days, I might have decided differently - but I couldn't.

Have things changed? Yes. Everyone's a photographer these days. If there's one thing I hate about digital and auto / programme modes, it's the fact that everyone can get "passable" results straight off and pass them off as "professional" quality. Equality? Democracy?

Sadly, many of the poor buggers who appoint the pros wouldn't know the difference as they've never seen a top-notch inkject print, let alone a professionally printed chemical print.

Personally, I'd recommend going with what the customer wants. Get it all down in writing, signed off and be prepared to stand your ground. Also, get a good deposit up-front.

Sorry to sound cynical but I get the impression it's dog eat dog in the professional ranks these days.

For me I find the DSLR more economic. I use Nikon film and digital gear. The camera's share the same lenses, flash gear, computer etc. The big difference is the film rig consumes film and processing charges. I do not upgrade my DSLr. I have a D200 and I will just shoot it until it's worn out like I do with everything. However I prefer film so I shoot it much more. I do not shoot that much where the money is out of hand. It's all about a fun hobby for me. I have no aspirations to ever make a cent on it. That would just ruin a good hobby.
However if anyone would like to view the worlds best Digital vs Film battle then watch this clip on you-tube. It's actually called Midsomer Murders, A picture of innocence. You-tube shows the entire epidsode in 10 minute clips. The battle is in this clip #2, and is about 1/3rd of the way in. It's pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLM-PwNaElY&feature=related

Time flys. It's been over a year since my last post.