Professionals need a film "qualification"
It would be very useful if professional photographers could append a logo or letter to their website and marketing literature to indicate their experience and usage of film based products, mabey something like:
Professional Analogue Photographers Association (PAPA)
The logo could include a catch line too, such as:
"For excellence in Photography"
Has anyone considered starting such an organisation or is there one already in existance?
How are you going to check whether these professionals have the experience and usage? There's already several qualifications covering photography, why another one? and finally, how would it be "very useful" to have this?
Experience and usage could be ascertained with the same method used by the like of the BIPP and MPA - based on submission of comissioned professional work.
Originally Posted by markbb
It would be very useful becuase many professionals using film feel alienated these days and many have switched to digital because they think they should and be seen to be "modern".
An association specific to film based photography would add weight and help professionals justify their use of traditional technlogy. It would give more relevance of this type of capture to the layman.
When I read stuff in wedding and bridal magazines like: "All decent photographers should have now invested in the latest digital gear" - note the words "should have" - the layman thinks digital is best and film irrelevant - I know that such an association is absolutely necessary if the use of film professionally is to remain for the forseeable future.
Are you talking specifically about wedding photography? If so, then , yes, there is an expectation nowadays that people can review and see images the same day. Not impossible with film but a lot easier with digital.
As to the other forms of photography, do you think that purchasers care whether an image was captured on film or digital? They may well care about the longetivity of the print, an area where analogue can claim superior results based on experience.
I don't sell many prints, so this is not a problem for me. Maybe you do? Do many of your customers raise these issues.
I have decided to fill my schedule in with a few weddings next summer and have currently booked 5 seperate weddings for the summer, and not one of the customers have asked if I shoot film or digital...I think we are seeing the magazine writers say you have to have the latest in digital, but not often am I seeing the client ask...
And really, I don't run into customers who ask about the orgin of the print, digital or analog, unless they are fine art collectors, which I don't find that many true blue collectors, the customer don't care, as far as throwing out another association with a designator on my images or my business card, I don't see it making a whole lot of difference.
As a 100% film shooter, I don't feel any alianation at all, not one single bit!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have been a part of the organization "Qualification" programs in the past.
I under no circumstance would I go that way again! If you need to know a photographers qualifications, simply look at his prints. Better yet, ask to see a dozen or so of his negatives. Nuff said, Charlie.....
I agree with you Charles. The first problem is just defining what "Analog" is - it can become quite an esoteric point.
Originally Posted by Charles Webb
For example, I shoot mostly Fuji Velvia and print on Fuji Crystal Archive, but I print using a Chromira. Is this Analog or Digital, and where are the bountries between the two? My prints are all hand mounted on archival mounting board, using wood frames and UV glass - all materials associated with having the best quality I can get. I am committed to doing as much as possible using traditional materials, but I just don't feel that I can justify the expense of setting up a color darkroom here in Hawaii - unless I want to spend at least half my monthly income just in rent (frankly I find color printing to be drudge work). My other option is to send my prints out, but given the number of images I have on hand, the multiple sizes I sell and the volume I keep on hand, that would mean I have would have dozens of transparencies out at any given time - too much to manage successfully (and I wouldn't want to lose one).
Interesting points evenyone - this whole thing was just a spur of the moment thought I had.
Mark - Yes I suppose I was targeting wedding photography
Personally, I got married back in July. I did not handle the search for a photographer, but simply specified the day needed to be captured on film, not digitally. I have to say the "digital revolution" has meant loads of wedding photographers coming into the market who have literally just gone out and bought the latest digital equipment (often substandard, I can only think of a handful of digital bodies capable of half decent professional photography) and software. One person even had the naivety to say "these days with digital equipment you dont really have to think"....so why do we need to hire you then? The phtographs were, apparently, unbeliveably bad.
Next summer I am expecting to photograph several weddings, and I don't specify whether whether I shoot digitally or on film, although it is exclusively film, I let my portfolio speak for itself. I just thought some sort of association might be useful, but mabey not.
roteague - we spent our honeymoon on Kauai, an amazing place. Not many people get there from the UK due to the distance, but it was worth the 16 hours of flight!