I agree with the sentiment, Henry. I'm fortunate to be heavily involved in the swing-dancing community, so there are always a lot of dapper folk who care about how they look for me to shoot.
Printable View
I agree with the sentiment, Henry. I'm fortunate to be heavily involved in the swing-dancing community, so there are always a lot of dapper folk who care about how they look for me to shoot.
I agree HEAVILY with the statements about not undercutting the market as it really hurts us professionals, ALSO the standard is to charge for the work PLUS MATERIALS which means the client will be paying for all your film rolls. Most clients won't really like this as it would be a "new concept" to them since its not done that way any longer.
Also I think we tend to forget that the average person views film as crappy and low quality, most people if ANY exposure to film is by means of shitty labs with bad scans returned on disk that are pixelated and covered with dust and blurred, not crisp or brilliant looking. So the public often views film as low quality vs digital. So it will be hard to convince people that film will give them nice images.
Just some food for thought.
Perhaps just not telling them it's film at all would help ;) haha
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
photograph people, because they are so overweight and dress so poorly now. (see the Walmart people photos now on youtube). I'm not going to photograph men with no collars, or women in pants. And this is a genteel description of the present style. So I shoot barns and pastures and the like.
Boy.. this is so true. I live in New Mexico and standard dress code here out in public is Sponge Bob sweats, flip flops and stained T shirt. This is the MO for both men and women. No one takes pride on how they look. Film or digital shooter stuggle with shooting people these days. I remember I shot a wedding some time ago. The couple was average however the the uncles did want to tuck in thier tux shirt or make the effort to look nice. I felt very diappointed on wanted to do for them, but without the cooperation from people it will never happen. I'm not shooting weddings any more. They also try talk you down on the price, with the statment of "Just a little Ceremony". Sorry.. I'm straying from topic. When I shoot an assignment, I usually ask for two week turn around. So, being timely is consistant with either film or digital. I should mention that I have access to high end film scanner that scans negs to give 1.5 gig images.
I was going to mention that I still make my living shooting film, but this thread seems to have gone somewhere completely different. I probably don't meet the sartorial requirements of this august group of critics anyway, so I'll just move on.
I've actually found the opposite in the UK - there's a conservative fashionista epidemic. Even in rural towns everyone has a metropolitan style, no matter how ugly, overweight or lower class they are. Most portraiture ends up looking like the Sartorialist. This is admittedly more of a problem for documentary work - an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by henry finley
Hey Mark, Are your customers reseptive to what you provide? Do you shoot Medium format or 35mm?
Todd
If you have any aspirations towards working as a professional photographer, then stop what you are doing and buy this book: Best Business Practices for Photographers by John Harrington. It's a good dose of reality in a business where most people live in fantasy land.
I'd be very interested in what you have to say. It's great that you still make a living shooting film, but it's even better that you still make a living making photographs!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree