That is pretty typical from a significant portion of the "pro" wedding shooters out there.

I had the (mis?)fortune of attending a fairly large number of weddings recently, so I got to see a LOT of different shooters.

Now when I go to a wedding I bring a camera. What I do is shoot the moments the hired gun is missing. Then I get the best picture of the couple printed out by hand on high quality fibre at 11x16 or 8x10 (depending on negative size). I mount it up and frame it. Voila', a great wedding gift that looks great and is something they usually can't afford themselves (most people can't and won't fork out the big $$ for a large print from the pro....many don't even consider it).

Some shooters get REALLY mad at me. I had one guy who said he wasn't going to shoot the wedding if I didn't put my Bronica in the car. My take on this was "Well, I do have 20 rolls of film in my bag here....and I am available", but the B&G were stressed as it is, so I brought out my FT2. This guy was so clueless as to think that it could not match his 35mm Canon. Proved him wrong when all was done and said.

Then there are the ones shooting digital. Time and again I have seen my stuff come back well before theirs does. I don't mean a few days difference. I mean a couple of MONTHS usually. True, I don't have their workload, but a couple of months for proofs? Come on. I thought digital was supposed to be faster!

I think in the future we will see a return to film. Especially for things like weddings. Right now many people skimp on the photographer at weddings. The number of times I have been asked "Can YOU shoot it for us?" is innumberable. I did that ONCE. And it was a diaster. The B&G were quoted my cost. They agreed. Then they said "Well, $500.00 is too much, we can get this guy for $250.00." Despite pointing out this was COST for me (and an estimate), and that they agreed to this, they wanted me to shoot for LESS than $250.00. Well, I'd spent $200.00 on film, so this was not gonna happen. And I hate that kind of crap. So they ended up with the "Kodak Glossy Photo Paper" wedding pics from "Cletus the Photographer" with his Coolpix.

Now, which is gonna last longer, the inkjet prints, or the stuff I took and had printed on Crystal Archive?

My prediction is that all these people spending more money on flowers than on pictures will soon find that their "special moment" has faded. Literally! The impermanence of the mediums used will result in a lot of lost photos. The smart shooters, the ones who KNOW what they are doing and still use MF and a Stroboframe, will be able to sell their services based wholly on archival quality! If you mention to t he happy couple that these images will last "60-100 years so your grandkids can enjoy them", you will get a lot of response to that.

That alone will keep the film industry going. Add to that all the artists out there who will keep working with silver and you have a strong industry. Plus there are the nations where people don't have as much disposible income. They won't be moving to digital as quickly as everyone else. Hell, I have heard that in some nations guys still take tintypes for tourists!

Film is far from dead, far from dying. And the fact is those who KNOW how to use it will be sought out in the future.