I'm not most photographers, but I prefer film.
Originally Posted by wirehead
That's two days later than the average client wanted things when I was working in advertising.
As one once said to me, "No, I want it yesterday. If I wanted it today, I'd ask for it tomorrow."
Last edited by Roger Hicks; 07-11-2007 at 03:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I agree with Roger, when I was in the graphic arts world the company motto was, "Rush, Tomorrow is too Late!".
It would be interesting to see the questions and how they could be interpreted, or if there was a slant that the company who ordered the survey wished for.
The local very small mini-lab, is finding that film developing has bottomed out and is on the rise. He is receiving more colour neg film (35mm) than previous, the trend has been happening since March. These figures are being matched against last years. Whether he has more work because other mini-labs have ceased, or there is a general uplift of 35mm film usage, he isn't 100% sure, but he is starting to grin a bit more.
In Sydney as a Pro Lab owner I can say that my clients
prefer film however bean counters and clients who
want instant gratification push for digital imaging.
Thanks for the link Bill, I have no problem with news like this
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
What goes around comes around-if you survive long enough
Exactly, and I can't tell you how much this burns me up. This is why when I shoot film, I tell my clients that they aren't going to get their images the next day. They'll get them in a reasonable amount of time, just like it's always been. If they bitch about how they want them NOW, I recommend that they get a little useful item: a life. Surely they can find SOMETHING else to do while they're waiting for the images.
Originally Posted by wirehead
I confess I've never understood the speed argument for digital. I can shoot film, process and dry and scan it in a matter of a few hours. A digital capture will require some manipulation in photoshop. Okay, the digital guy will beat me by a couple of hours, but is that relevant? To a photojournalist, maybe, but otherwise I don't get it. Sanders
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
That's.... like... yesterday!
(And you're right. No sane person gets it. How many sane people are advertising account executives?)
Actually, in all fairness:
Bike to lab 10-45 minutes
E6 run RUSH 30-45 minutes (200% loading)
Client now hopelessly drunk...
Cost of bikes, labs, rush fees, wine...
If I were still in advertising, I'd shoot digital.
EDIT: Frances said, 'No, today it's Perrier'
So: client with attention span of gnat, looking for excuse to make trouble. Model on retainer. Hire fees past 24 hours. Lab fees for late runs...
Last edited by Roger Hicks; 07-11-2007 at 02:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.
You can't show the art director or client a more or less final product as you are shooting. If you screw the shot with film it could be hours before you notice that you need a reshoot. Most clients (almost all I know) want digital files and the vast majority of shots never exceed 8x10. Having the image go from exposure to disk in fewer steps is a huge time saver. Those quality issues that recommend film's usage are seldom requirements for commercial work and therefore it is very difficult to argue for film. I can prep a DSLR image in less than half the time it takes to prep a scanned image. Since customers want digital shooting digital has huge benefits. I can produce a quality contact sheet from film in about the time I can do likewise with digital.
Originally Posted by Sanders McNew
As it is I shoot film commercially, because I can't afford a digital back for my sinar. I shoot film for my art and personal use because I prefer the results that are unique to film, and the push pull of the process. I use film for what it uniquely offers and would and will do the same at some point with digital.