One Reason Why Film Rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooManyShots

.... Of course, if your typical clients are making more than 6 figure annual incomes, you would probably don't care too much about the normal folks. :) To generalize your unusual experiences to the general photography market is just wrong....

---

You are looking at the world while holding the telescope from the "easy" side.

There is no such thing as general photography market.

1. There are easy to get into (and regret it) markets - in that market falls the target group, to whom camera manufacturers sell dreams.
2. There are harder to get into markets, sorta boutique niches - in that market falls "real craft "artists and those with business knowledge.

When activities are difficult, only people who have the strongest stake will participate.
Hence 9 to 5, Monday to Friday job is what the majority fall into. They regret it during the weekends but then comes Monday...

Another reason film rules. I just shot and had developed C-41 film that expired in July 1994. I would like to see one use PC software from 1994 process digital images on today's computers! [Except possibly on a Mac, because we all know that Macs have been and will always be vastly superior to any stinkin' PC.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevs

"The case may be that in the wedding photography sector the percentage of work produced in film is higher than in general photography."

hth,
kevs

---

Thanks. So percentually really does not exists. Re-reading my statement I see I had an easy substitute in "comparatively". :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooManyShots

No, this isn't about your ability. It is about the business of photography. Just because you are capable of shooting film, it does not mean you can make a successful business out of your photography. You must have a market for you works. And clients who are willing to pay for your services at your asking price. And whether or not you can fulfill your client's expectations with the necessary turn around time. I am pretty sure it is not a smart idea to promote yourself as a film wedding photographer in order to define your niche market and your style.... you have to ask yourself if the couples would care if the photos are shot with film or digital?? All they want is good quality photos. Not all couples are art majors. Not all couples know anything about photography.

---

There is an old saying, to the carpenter who has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I decided a few years ago that digital is like another film format, actually I consider the DSLR as one and the P&S digital as another. A good carpenter has more then one tool, heck a few carpenters I have met, have half a dozen different hammers:whistling: A good photographer carries more then one camera, and for most there should be a film camera, maybe more then one, and in different formats, and a digital. The one time I shot a wedding, I had 2 cameras, one with B&W and the other with colour film. Now I would probably carry the digital as well. Some shots you want in B&W, some you want on colour film and some you will want digital. The key is to use the tool that gives you the result you, as a photographer want, with a minimum of fuss and time wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wogster

The one time I shot a wedding, I had 2 cameras, one with B&W and the other with colour film.

---

With a Hasselblad or any MF camera with changeable backs, you only need one camera.

With a Pacemaker Speed or Crown Graphic, you only need one camera and sets of film holders with different films.

If you use digital you will miss the truly great shots because you will be too busy chimpin' to watch what is going on. :whistling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirius Glass

Another reason film rules. I just shot and had developed C-41 film that expired in July 1994. I would like to see one use PC software from 1994 process digital images on today's computers! [Except possibly on a Mac, because we all know that Macs have been and will always be vastly superior to any stinkin' PC.]

---

Do this well with E-6 from 1994 you will not. Chance to fix aged dyes there is not with E-6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diapositivo

Thanks. So percentually really does not exists. Re-reading my statement I see I had an easy substitute in "comparatively". :-)

---

It exists now, you've just invented it. :-D But I won't turn this thread into an English lesson; I make a poor teacher and we understand your meaning anyway. :-D

Cheers,
kevs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirius Glass

With a Hasselblad or any MF camera with changeable backs, you only need one camera.

With a Pacemaker Speed or Crown Graphic, you only need one camera and sets of film holders with different films.

If you use digital you will miss the truly great shots because you will be too busy chimpin' to watch what is going on. :whistling:

---

That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.

How many weddings are now shot on Phones?

I wish we had even Instamatic photos of our wedding, as we had no pictures taken at all.

The arguing continues but as long as there is film I will use it and enjoy it. And the naysayers can't stop me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wblynch

How many weddings are now shot on Phones?

I wish we had even Instamatic photos of our wedding, as we had no pictures taken at all.

The arguing continues but as long as there is film I will use it and enjoy it. And the naysayers can't stop me.

---

Probably quite a few, not everyone can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars for photos that will sit in a drawer, to be hauled out only for special occasions. My own was shot mostly on the 35mm disposables we put out on tables.