Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital vs Film  (Read 24506 times)
Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2009, 05:12:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I use both, my head says Digital and my heart says Film. Each time i return from a stock shoot of 1-2 months i have the unenviable task of editing a few thousand digital images, then have a further month post processing which i despise. Post could be done quicker however if it was worth shooting in the first place it's worth maximising the image in post, and that takes time. My film images from the same stock trip however are much easier to edit and look good right off the contact sheet and this is a real pleasure, i shoot less, am more considered, and generally a better photographer. I also much prefer the 6x7 format of my Pentax to my 1DS3 which again allows me to compose better and achieve a different look.

The real difference however is in the feel of the images, having spent the last week in post with 1DS3 images from a shoot in December i have been happy with much of what i have been able to produce, but as usual after a day with my printer yesterday working on some 6x7 Portra colour negs shot on the Pentax from the same shoot things always get put into perspective. Negs were hand printed to perfection then flatbed scanned in a custom built Epson 10000XL scanner (no glass/silverfast software) and reworked in photoshop, drop dead gorgeous!!!

Horses for courses, the Canon will still produce much of my stock work, but the albeit very slow film process will still be used, as this is where my heart lies, and the extra bit of magic.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 05:39:14 AM by Gary Yeowell » Logged
hobbsr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2009, 06:46:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gary Yeowell
I use both, my head says Digital and my heart says Film. Each time i return from a stock shoot of 1-2 months i have the unenviable task of editing a few thousand digital images, then have a further month post processing which i despise. Post could be done quicker however if it was worth shooting in the first place it's worth maximising the image in post, and that takes time. My film images from the same stock trip however are much easier to edit and look good right off the contact sheet and this is a real pleasure, i shoot less, am more considered, and generally a better photographer. I also much prefer the 6x7 format of my Pentax to my 1DS3 which again allows me to compose better and achieve a different look.

The real difference however is in the feel of the images, having spent the last week in post with 1DS3 images from a shoot in December i have been happy with much of what i have been able to produce, but as usual after a day with my printer yesterday working on some 6x7 Portra colour negs shot on the Pentax from the same shoot things always get put into perspective. Negs were hand printed to perfection then flatbed scanned in a custom built Epson 10000XL scanner (no glass/silverfast software) and reworked in photoshop, drop dead gorgeous!!!

Horses for courses, the Canon will still produce much of my stock work, but the albeit very slow film process will still be used, as this is where my heart lies, and the extra bit of magic.


Hi Gary,

Any chance to post a sample image? I  know it is hard to get the real impact but I would love to see.

Thanks
Logged
Murray Fredericks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 290



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2009, 06:56:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Very Interesting,

I am printing an exhibition at the moment which consists of

9 prints 120cm x 150cm all scanned 8" x 10" neg and
1 print Pano stitch from MFDB.

Same 'numbers' on screen for both but the 'data' from both is responding differently. Particularly separation of tones and colour contrast. In theory they should respond the same in print if the numbers are the same? They don't appear to, however...

I love the film 'quality' but the digital system provides a scene that the film cannot  - and I tried stitching 8x10 scans and it did not work...

BTW I shoot only digital for commissioned jobs and mostly film for my exhibition work.

Murray
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2009, 10:13:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: terence_patrick
I guess it's different in every market. I'm basing on LA's prices from Samy's which is $6.59/roll of 220 Fuji 160S and Icon which is $28 process/proof, then there's the $47 scan fee for a full roll of 220 in the 6-10mb quality range. Sh*t adds up, but damn it looks good.

Good to know about LA.  My cost structure is based on 120 color film and no scanning. Roughly $4 a roll, $4 for processing, and $8 for contacts (if I print them).  Black and white is really cheap if you process it yourself.


What's funny to me is that pixel peeping a scanned piece of film is disturbing.  It looks like something is wrong with the film, camera, scanner etc., especially compared to digital.  But when you make a print, its the reverse, at least without a lot of post for the digital file.



Logged
csp
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2009, 10:31:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Good to know about LA.  My cost structure is based on 120 color film and no scanning. Roughly $4 a roll, $4 for processing, and $8 for contacts (if I print them).  Black and white is really cheap if you process it yourself.


What's funny to me is that pixel peeping a scanned piece of film is disturbing.  It looks like something is wrong with the film, camera, scanner etc., especially compared to digital.  But when you make a print, its the reverse, at least without a lot of post for the digital file.



you can make a digital file always look like film but you have to be brave.

blocking the shadows, adding cross color shifts, limiting the color gamut and adding grain and blur is a tough task not  everybody is able to do.

the only thing i like and use often is grain  it can change the appearance of a print rather strong and lead to a greater perceptual sharpness.

Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2009, 12:11:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I too use both, but honestly using film less and less...  I still enjoy B&W capture on film, but my 'nostalgia' toward color film emulsions is waning; just yesterday I had a request for a print from one of my older MF film captures...

The original was a Provia transparency, and a very long exposure to boot -- 6 minutes.  Anyway, at the time I of course exposed and filtered for the reciprocity and the image was as good as one could make it at the time.  However there is a pronounced color response shift that is tough to deal with even with a quality scan.  With my digital camera, I would have first made the same exposure in 90 seconds and next, I would not have the weird color response to deal with.  I realize this is an extreme capture case, but even in most 'normally' exposed film cases, I am dealing with a negative color response issue in post processing.

A small FWIW,
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2009, 12:14:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: csp
you can make a digital file always look like film but you have to be brave.

blocking the shadows, adding cross color shifts, limiting the color gamut and adding grain and blur is a tough task not  everybody is able to do.

the only thing i like and use often is grain  it can change the appearance of a print rather strong and lead to a greater perceptual sharpness.

True that, which is why so much digital work looks too clean to me, at least for my editorial and personal work.  I think film looks better in print.  I'm talking negative film. I'd rather look at some of Sarah Moon's underexposed, blury Type 55 prints than, say, a digital print from a photographer I like, well, lets just say Michael Thompson.  I like Michael's stuff.  Good prints from a Chromira machine.  Nice stuff.  I still like my Sarah Moon prints better, all scratched and dark and blury.

The only film that I've used that blocks shadows is Velvia, but most chomes do that.  Not sure about color gamut.  I know digital can be more accurate than film, no doubt.  

In truthe, I've never really been convinced by digital.  The Dalsa chips are great.  The P30 is awesome.  Great files, but I never warmed to it.  I'm not trying to argue or change anyone's mind, but a lot of digital work, my commercial work included, seems to have an aesthetic that appeals to anal retentive adolescent boys, striving for perfection at 200%.  It reminds me of the that horrific movie "The Transporter".  Martial arts, guns, waxing the perfect black paint of the Audi.  Gilding the lilly, so to speak.  That is not to say that there isn't great digital work out there, I'm not saying that at all.  I just think that the nature of digital lends itself to perfection seeking, which is never really attainable, which is why all the boys, mostly, want the latest and the greatest.  I think Digital RULES for landscapes and architechture, products, etc.  This is where all that perfection and resolution pays off. If I shot buildings and landscapes I would be all digital.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 12:18:20 PM by TMARK » Logged
Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2009, 12:43:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
you can make a digital file always look like film but you have to be brave.

blocking the shadows, adding cross color shifts, limiting the color gamut and adding grain and blur is a tough task not everybody is able to do.

the only thing i like and use often is grain it can change the appearance of a print rather strong and lead to a greater perceptual sharpness.

I hear this all the time from digital shooters who have abandoned film, sorry but IMO it is simply rubbish. The ugly way that ANY digital camera captures the transition of highlights in no way resembles film's characteristics. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.

I'm with TMARK on this, give me a lovely Type 55 image over anything shot with the technically excellent P backs. As an example, this weekend i visited the Leibovitz retrospective in London, and for me the most compelling work was her polaroids printed large, her least compelling work was the recent digital shoot of the Queen.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 01:01:31 PM by Gary Yeowell » Logged
csp
Guest
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2009, 02:17:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gary Yeowell
I hear this all the time from digital shooters who have abandoned film, sorry but IMO it is simply rubbish. The ugly way that ANY digital camera captures the transition of highlights in no way resembles film's characteristics. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.


there are to ways to see it -  if you need correct color reproduction forget film i'm old enough to remember how bad some films respond to certain colors. and even with the best controlled e6
or c-41 process you get cross colors shifts with every type of film !  some like it but it is a failure, anyway creativity has no borders so if this is the look you like go for it.  what you see as better transition in the highlight area is mostly caused by film grain - noise. it is an illusion nothing more.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 02:17:55 PM by csp » Logged
Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2009, 02:33:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: csp
there are to ways to see it -  if you need correct color reproduction forget film i'm old enough to remember how bad some films respond to certain colors. and even with the best controlled e6
or c-41 process you get cross colors shifts with every type of film !  some like it but it is a failure, anyway creativity has no borders so if this is the look you like go for it.  what you see as better transition in the highlight area is mostly caused by film grain - noise. it is an illusion nothing more.

Then you are indeed kidding yourself, if YOU can't see clipped highlights and abrupt transitions then i'm afraid the discussion ends here.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 02:34:51 PM by Gary Yeowell » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2009, 07:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gary Yeowell
. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.

This is a 90 second shot from my digital back, taken as the fog rolled in about an hour after sunset.  It is processed just like any other of my raw files in C1 and only C1 was used to generate this, no CS at all. It looks a bit rough due to the jpeg reduction (and C1 does not have the best jpeg rendering engine), so there's a crop included too.  I don't think it looks too bad at all:



Here's the actual pixel crop from the end of the pier in the distance at the right side of the image. (I pulled the full 16-bit tiff into CS to make this jpeg crop, but no other processing was done.)  I guess one could argue the rendering of the point source lights, but again, they look good to me...:



FWIW this was an ISO 100 shot with no added NR run.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 07:12:53 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2009, 07:25:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
True that, which is why so much digital work looks too clean to me, at least for my editorial and personal work.  I think film looks better in print.  I'm talking negative film. I'd rather look at some of Sarah Moon's underexposed, blury Type 55 prints than, say, a digital print from a photographer I like, well, lets just say Michael Thompson.  I like Michael's stuff.  Good prints from a Chromira machine.  Nice stuff.  I still like my Sarah Moon prints better, all scratched and dark and blury.

The only film that I've used that blocks shadows is Velvia, but most chomes do that.  Not sure about color gamut.  I know digital can be more accurate than film, no doubt.
This why film is so alluring, it isn't perfect. Whereas digital or video [which is only moving digital] show things that look more like real life. I also dislike the bland perfectionisn of many digital images. The totally grain free image with weird skin highlights due to the awkward on/off transition you get with bright areas in digital, makes people look like shop dummies - not attractive. I always hated the look of video and when digital looks like that, I find it repulsive.
Having said that I cannot remember when I last used film. I have a stack left in fridge - will I ever use it, I doubt it somehow? Not unless I get a pain free film scanner.
I sometimes write actions/presets to try and make my shot look like films I liked, Tri-X in Acuspeed, Provia 100+ 400, Agfa 1000RS or like say lith prints.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
dwdmguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2009, 09:42:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Hobbsr, I'd like to ask you a question please first. Why?
Do you think that you need to have better pictures then your D3 and/or H3D can offer? I guess I'm saying does the D3 and H3D not offer amazing quality, even quality enough that in your talented hands and eye should blow away the competition? I'm not being a smarty pants by any means, I mean it. You mention that you want to upgrade to the D3x soon, again why?
The additional Megapixels will not give you any higher quality image, I can't see any advantage in the MP's helping in any larger size that you would need for print. To me, and I have a long history as a fiber optic engineer, Dynamic Range is EVERYTHING but yet, the D3x does not offer a difference in DR over the D3.

This of course is coming from a guy that just added a Mamiya AFD-III w/ a leaf 65s back to his existing D700. There, there is a HUGE DR delta whereas the Leaf is a full 11 stops of DR. I was once a gear junkie until I really studied my art and what I wanted. I too am think of going back to film by adding a 120 back to the Mamiya but that is for sport. And I don't feel that we will loose film during our lifetime however we will see less labs. I can tell you that I know A&I is commited to 120 that will last thru my lifetime so I'm just fine with that.

So, why?
Best of luck.
Tom
Logged

hobbsr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2009, 11:09:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdmguy
Hobbsr, I'd like to ask you a question please first. Why?
Do you think that you need to have better pictures then your D3 and/or H3D can offer? I guess I'm saying does the D3 and H3D not offer amazing quality, even quality enough that in your talented hands and eye should blow away the competition? I'm not being a smarty pants by any means, I mean it. You mention that you want to upgrade to the D3x soon, again why?
The additional Megapixels will not give you any higher quality image, I can't see any advantage in the MP's helping in any larger size that you would need for print. To me, and I have a long history as a fiber optic engineer, Dynamic Range is EVERYTHING but yet, the D3x does not offer a difference in DR over the D3.

This of course is coming from a guy that just added a Mamiya AFD-III w/ a leaf 65s back to his existing D700. There, there is a HUGE DR delta whereas the Leaf is a full 11 stops of DR. I was once a gear junkie until I really studied my art and what I wanted. I too am think of going back to film by adding a 120 back to the Mamiya but that is for sport. And I don't feel that we will loose film during our lifetime however we will see less labs. I can tell you that I know A&I is commited to 120 that will last thru my lifetime so I'm just fine with that.

So, why?
Best of luck.
Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your post and my name is Rodney. It is a very good question, why indeed! Let me see if I can explain?

Let me start by saying the D3 and the H3D provide amazing image quality and I fee are two of the best systems and have enabled my photography to go to another level, now with that said what is the issue that seems to be burning within to start threads and discussions like this? Maybe the best word is "soul" I think in the above posts there are some key aspects that is driving this investigation into film. Digital is too perfect, too clean, too good! Film with all its characteristics is not and that is why we feel different about the image and the print. Yes we can play around and try to make our digital files look like film but as some have said it is not the same and can never be the same. Digital is a different capture method with it's own characteristics and I am not saying they are bad or better or even worse they are different.

I see photography as a craft and a science and with digital maybe we have swung a little too much to the science with the many many discussions about technology. Also with the vast increase in consumer digital cameras the black box of photography has been blown open so the quest is to be different to do things that they can not, produce images they can not. In the wedding game these days it is not uncommon to have D700 and D3's next you and with the same lens so many of the images will be the same as mine. Now of course they can not see the same way as me and maybe the post work will increase the different but never the less more and more these days the camera will help them take a good image.

So I see the areas that we as photographers need to excel are in lighting and the type of images we create hence the reason to go back to film. This then also leads to the workflow changes and as mentioned above it means giving a part of my workflow back to the lab and this is a very valid a key point. It also seems to be about $AUD 35 for a 120 roll process and scanned to approx. 18mb files corrected. This is starting to be a bit of a ramble but there is alot to cover with how photography as a business and a craft stays valid for portrait and wedding market. I will be increasing my base package to $6k this year and to add value I need to produce very different and compelling services and end products I see this for me in images that feel and look different (hence the film) and being the only one at a wedding with a contax 645 or G2 or Rollei 6008? lastly the print and moving more and more to fine art prints that are signed signature prints.

The bottom line is as some few use film the advantage is to use it to be different the advantage is the emotion not so much the technical side. In the end people buy images and they do that because they move them and have an emotional effect not because they are sharp of shot on a D3x or P30. Weddings are not logical we sell for the emotion.

I hope that makes some sense? shooting with film and the systems I speak of is just trying to swing a little bit back to the craft and mystery that photography once was when photographers showed up with the Hasselblad and tripod. I have learnt many things from my IT background and consulting days and that is people do not pay for things that they feel are commodity, digital just like dell to PC's dell are aspects that make these elements more commodity so the price goes down and the value limited, photographers need to understand how to drive their value up instead of cost down. If people can not see the value then they will not buy and if they think what they shoot on there camera is the same as what you show them then it will not be around very much longer.

Regards

Rodney
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2375


« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2009, 01:41:06 AM »
ReplyReply

You touch upon a thing here that is commonplace to every photographer in every area. It is a matter of perception of our clients. Some of our clients believe making/taking an image is simply a matter of buying some equipment and pushing a button. These types of clients nowadays will always feel our services are too expensive and better done by themselves or the next person that is willing to do it (almost) for free. I fear that moving to film will not win over these people.

Yes, it is true with digital the magic of the black box has disappeared for everyone including the people that used to pay for that.

I think that people that are willing to pay premium for wedding photography will do so regardless whether you shoot digital or film. These people appear to have diminished in numbers but I think the reality is that far more people actually didn't feel photography wasn't worth it in the first place. Now with digital the lid has been taken of the mistery of the 'black box' and people have other options. OTOH, the arrival of digital also meant a lot more demand for images ranging from low-end to high-end.

Having said that if it does make you feel good to use film and you feel that you deliver the best and most creative quality you should definitely do so. If you can also market that effictively as a unique selling point to your clients it would be perfect as well. OTOH if you can market that you can also do the same with your digital product
Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2009, 01:44:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gary Yeowell
I hear this all the time from digital shooters who have abandoned film, sorry but IMO it is simply rubbish. The ugly way that ANY digital camera captures the transition of highlights in no way resembles film's characteristics. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.

I'm with TMARK on this, give me a lovely Type 55 image over anything shot with the technically excellent P backs. As an example, this weekend i visited the Leibovitz retrospective in London, and for me the most compelling work was her polaroids printed large, her least compelling work was the recent digital shoot of the Queen.

I rarely shoot with film now but thinking about Kodak 160NC gives me the goosebumps.
Recently I've been seeing digital achieving more of a gentle feel with the tonalities, especially with my recent 5D MkII set on Saturation -3 and Contrast -3. The whites turned out much less harsh than my 1Ds MkII.

I think that part of the differences you see in the usage of film vs digital also is partly attributed to workflow. For most of my situations now I require the use of digital but shooting film makes your brain work in a different, slower way, plus the different sizing of film vs the standard 645 sizing of MFDBs creates a different experience of course.
Logged
csp
Guest
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2009, 03:55:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gary Yeowell
Then you are indeed kidding yourself, if YOU can't see clipped highlights and abrupt transitions then i'm afraid the discussion ends here.


with film you always have a layer of fog-noise over the highlights caused by the process and the film base.  you see it as  better transition in real its a film problem.
i don't know what  camera or back you use and how you expose and process your images but maybe there lies your problem.
Logged
hobbsr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2009, 04:30:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
You touch upon a thing here that is commonplace to every photographer in every area. It is a matter of perception of our clients. Some of our clients believe making/taking an image is simply a matter of buying some equipment and pushing a button. These types of clients nowadays will always feel our services are too expensive and better done by themselves or the next person that is willing to do it (almost) for free. I fear that moving to film will not win over these people.

Yes, it is true with digital the magic of the black box has disappeared for everyone including the people that used to pay for that.

I think that people that are willing to pay premium for wedding photography will do so regardless whether you shoot digital or film. These people appear to have diminished in numbers but I think the reality is that far more people actually didn't feel photography wasn't worth it in the first place. Now with digital the lid has been taken of the mistery of the 'black box' and people have other options. OTOH, the arrival of digital also meant a lot more demand for images ranging from low-end to high-end.

Having said that if it does make you feel good to use film and you feel that you deliver the best and most creative quality you should definitely do so. If you can also market that effictively as a unique selling point to your clients it would be perfect as well. OTOH if you can market that you can also do the same with your digital product

You make a good point about clients perception and by no means am i suggesting that film has some magic answers, nor that it is an attempt to convince people of the value of photography if they are not already convinced. I think the key as with any luxury items and brands is the perception of value that we create and in that as with handmade/luxury items is where the film angle could and can assist as a point of differentiation in the marketplace. As it does assist in giving a different potential feel and look to your images that makes you different on another level to what is being created by digital it also and I think this is a key point gives you a story to your value. My potential clients will understand the difference if you explain and show how the image is different, just as at the moment I can show the different in a MF H3D image oppose to a D3 image.

Rodney
Logged
dwdmguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2009, 08:42:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Well Rodney, I understand a lot better now and what you discuss does make sense. I think it's a shame that you cannot put a 120/220 back on the H3D, at least I think you cannot. I know on the H1 I could swap out the digi back for a film back. But the H1 never got the love it deserved.

Well, this may be too easy just for me to say, but I've gotten great results when using Alien Skin's Film plugin. Have you tried that at all. I found their Tri-x 400, FujiFilm and Ilford to be remarkably bang on. But nothing, even film bodies, came close to my Hassey 500 c/m with tri-x or Ilford.

I'm also wondering if it is not only the Digi camera that is "too clean" but could it be the Digi lenses you are using? Would an adapter and an ol' Zeiss change? Just a thought.

Perhaps you won't get your answer until you get a hold of a MF film camera, sling it at your next wedding and shoot the same scene side by side, no matter the settings because they have to be different. Not only view the results side by side but review them both before and after scanning side by side and then you can judge the benefit v. the "time / hassel / investment" issue.

Best of luck.
Tom


Quote from: hobbsr
Hi Tom,

Thanks for your post and my name is Rodney. It is a very good question, why indeed! Let me see if I can explain?

Let me start by saying the D3 and the H3D provide amazing image quality and I fee are two of the best systems and have enabled my photography to go to another level, now with that said what is the issue that seems to be burning within to start threads and discussions like this? Maybe the best word is "soul" I think in the above posts there are some key aspects that is driving this investigation into film. Digital is too perfect, too clean, too good! Film with all its characteristics is not and that is why we feel different about the image and the print. Yes we can play around and try to make our digital files look like film but as some have said it is not the same and can never be the same. Digital is a different capture method with it's own characteristics and I am not saying they are bad or better or even worse they are different.

I see photography as a craft and a science and with digital maybe we have swung a little too much to the science with the many many discussions about technology. Also with the vast increase in consumer digital cameras the black box of photography has been blown open so the quest is to be different to do things that they can not, produce images they can not. In the wedding game these days it is not uncommon to have D700 and D3's next you and with the same lens so many of the images will be the same as mine. Now of course they can not see the same way as me and maybe the post work will increase the different but never the less more and more these days the camera will help them take a good image.

So I see the areas that we as photographers need to excel are in lighting and the type of images we create hence the reason to go back to film. This then also leads to the workflow changes and as mentioned above it means giving a part of my workflow back to the lab and this is a very valid a key point. It also seems to be about $AUD 35 for a 120 roll process and scanned to approx. 18mb files corrected. This is starting to be a bit of a ramble but there is alot to cover with how photography as a business and a craft stays valid for portrait and wedding market. I will be increasing my base package to $6k this year and to add value I need to produce very different and compelling services and end products I see this for me in images that feel and look different (hence the film) and being the only one at a wedding with a contax 645 or G2 or Rollei 6008? lastly the print and moving more and more to fine art prints that are signed signature prints.

The bottom line is as some few use film the advantage is to use it to be different the advantage is the emotion not so much the technical side. In the end people buy images and they do that because they move them and have an emotional effect not because they are sharp of shot on a D3x or P30. Weddings are not logical we sell for the emotion.

I hope that makes some sense? shooting with film and the systems I speak of is just trying to swing a little bit back to the craft and mystery that photography once was when photographers showed up with the Hasselblad and tripod. I have learnt many things from my IT background and consulting days and that is people do not pay for things that they feel are commodity, digital just like dell to PC's dell are aspects that make these elements more commodity so the price goes down and the value limited, photographers need to understand how to drive their value up instead of cost down. If people can not see the value then they will not buy and if they think what they shoot on there camera is the same as what you show them then it will not be around very much longer.

Regards

Rodney
Logged

Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2009, 12:55:07 AM »
ReplyReply

You know, the only people that care about this stuff are photographers. Clients sure don't. The people who look at our work don't. The only thing that matters is if your images connect with the client emotionally. If you're shooting medium format at a wedding, you're missing so many shots. The client doesn't care if you capture 100 megapixels of the family shots. They just want a photo with everyone's eye's open and people smiling.

Quote
In the end people buy images and they do that because they move them and have an emotional effect not because they are sharp of shot on a D3x or P30. Weddings are not logical we sell for the emotion.

I agree. But then you say this:

Quote
shooting with film and the systems I speak of is just trying to swing a little bit back to the craft and mystery that photography once was when photographers showed up with the Hasselblad and tripod

Yeah, but those images sucked. Nobody wants those static wedding shots. They want images with life and fun - whether you're shooting with film or digital doesn't matter if the images don't have life to them. A boring shot is still a boring shot whether it's 6, 8, 12, 22, 60 megapixels, provia, velvia, tmax, tri-x, portra or even type 55 (may it rest in peace).

Quote
My potential clients will understand the difference if you explain and show how the image is different, just as at the moment I can show the different in a MF H3D image oppose to a D3 image.

No they won't. If you have to explain it, the battle is lost.

John
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad