So I am having some arguments about overhead in my wedding business.
This is going to be an Analogue vs. Digital debate, I hate that, but it is what it is.
I shoot only film. I am trying to get very much more serious about my studio work. I have done a cost analysis on what my over head would be on par with someone shooting digital.
The going rate for images is about 700-1000. This is for the big expensive packages above about $2500. Using that model I did up some costs for 18 rolls. 8 rolls of 120, and 12 rolls of 35mm, all color. That's 532 images. Just to get a good mix.
My cost using the lab of my choice is $0.80/per image. That includes film cost, processing, High-rez Digital scan on CD, and 4x5 proof.
Now the argument comes in. Is the cost of shooting film equal to that of the useful lifetime of a professional digital camera? I'm not talking about a 'blad with a $50,000 digital back here... more like a Canon 5d, which is what most of the professionals in my area use.
I think that it can be done cheaper using a $500 camera that I have to buy once, than using a $2500 camera I have to buy every 3 or 4 years. Do digital cameras last that long in the professional world?
Please note that if Digital wins in the cost/benefit, I will be ok with that, but I will whine about it all the way to the bank.
I like your thinking, but I know from personal experience the my daughter wanted digital photography of her wedding two years ago so that she could send CDs of her wedding to her friends. The younger generations have no concept of the quality of film over digital, and they only know that digital is always the best for everything every time. My son-in-law is intriged by film but does not have the time or the money to really get into it. He also thought that digital was the way to go for the wedding.
During the shoot after the wedding, when the photographer was done, I suggested several other ideas which the photographer liked. So then I took out my camera and both of us took the photos that I suggested.
The photographer was too expensive to keep around for the cutting of the cake. She asked me to take those photographs. She and her friends loved my prints.
This is just the way it is. "The customer is always right."
I think the way you have it digital is cheaper. I'm not saying better, but cheaper. If you processed all of your own film I think it would be closer in cost. I would stick with film :D
Okay, I am wading in on this one even though we are on really thin ice regarding appropriateness for APUG.
I do think it is folly to try to compete with digital using film in terms of quantity. I think that the massive numbers of images being taken today have a lot to do with the digital process, and that the film process is going to be so much more cumbersome and expensive if you try to imitate what the digital shooters are doing. I do wonder if there isn't another way. Perhaps finding out how to compete as a high end photographer who provides high quality film images rather than high quantity digital. I am making some of these kinds of calculations as well right now, and am really not sure how well that market will work, but I really do doubt that there is a way to try to keep up with digital on a quantity basis.
Pictage charges $0.30 for a 4X5 digital proof. That means $250 savings per wedding, if it is based on 500 images. You also don't necessarily need to have proofs printed, if your clients like the idea of on line proofs. If you can give them color corrected files, you are down to 20 cents per, saving another $50. If you do 20 weddings a year, you are at $5,000 - $10,000 per year, which is multiple 5Ds. Per year.
Now, I am not advocating for digital here, I am just stating that there are things that digital is better for, and certainly "spray and pray" is one of them. If your clients are demanding 500 plus images, you are going to pay a lot to use film. I guess you might save some effort on managing the files, but since you are using a digital process anyway, I am not convinced.
However, I have really come to believe that there is a lot of momentum in the "film = art" area that can be used to differentiate yourself from the marketplace. I have really been looking at this myself, as I am planning on starting to do weddings and really believe that one needs to have a marketing position, something to differentiate one's self from the competition. If you wish to use film, and I really understand that, I believe that is the direction to go.
I have not given up on film. I recently made another large investment for film for myself. However, I do not have to make a living photographing weddings.
Originally Posted by Ektagraphic
I apologize for bringing the D-word in on this one.
I totally agree that there is no way I can compete with Digital in quantity.
I think half the problem I am having is that I don't know that the people in my area will want anything else than the standard trip everyone is pushing right now...
"Art" isn't real big around here... If I had my way, It would be all High-key, Low-key black and whites, and Color with loads of contrast. I'm sure someone will like it (read: buy),
but the masses don't seem to care about anything but what they are told to care about.
I think brides would look particularly awesomely beautiful in a full portrait with the "blowing out the sun" technique. Just my 5 cents.
One great thing is that the pictures you take in black and white; and process archivally on fiber-base paper, they shall be able to show to their great grand children. We all know; because the technology is that old. Ask the bride to be if that makes any difference to her.
AND---have you checked the solenoid adjust to ensure the bulbs will be synching?
Agreed. That may make a difference.
Originally Posted by Anscojohn
AND--Sorry, I have been chasing you around different threads. I don't have a solenoid on my lens.
Archival is great, but the younguns aren't interested unless it is on a computer. I rather see film used but this is the reality.
But this reality makes film camera that I could not afford in the past, affordable now!
I'm doing weddings on film and what I have found is that I make more money per hour.
I made the decision that my job is to shoot and keep the shot count much lower then you suggest, <250; I'm truly after just keepers, then the lab does the rest.
I get paid nicely for my time there, the client pays all processing costs on top of my fee, $50 per roll including proofs and scans.
Simple quick and done.